Marxist histories of the USA (PDFs inside)

[Ismail]

I have gotten permission from International Publishers to scan five works on early US history.

* American Capitalism: 1607-1800 (https://archive.org/download/AmericanCapitalism16071800/American%20Capitalism%201607%201800.pdf) by Anna Rochester, 1949.
* The First American Revolution (https://archive.org/download/TheFirstAmericanRevolution/The%20First%20American%20Revolution.pdf) by Jack Hardy, 1937.
* The Struggle for American Freedom: The First Two Hundred Years (https://archive.org/download/TheStruggleForAmericanFreedom/The%20Struggle%20for%20American%20Freedom.pdf) by Herbert Morais, 1944.
* The Rise of the American Nation: 1789-1824 by Francis Franklin, 1943. Will obtain eventually, then I'll scan it.
* Joseph Weydemeyer: Pioneer of American Socialism by Karl Obermann, 1947. Will obtain eventually, then I'll scan it.

Other works I've scanned:
* Lenin's Impact on the United States (https://archive.org/download/LeninsImpactOnTheUnitedStates/Lenins%20Impact%20on%20the%20United%20States.pdf) by Daniel Mason and Jessica Smith, 1970. (Sam Webb gave me permission to scan this)
* On the United States of America (https://archive.org/download/LeninOnTheUnitedStatesOfAmerica/Lenin%20on%20the%20United%20States%20of%20America. pdf) by V.I. Lenin, 1982. A Soviet compilation containing pretty much all of his writings and letters on the subject.

Other works not scanned by me:
* Outline Political History of the Americas (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7trXEFcZimVdVlNbTNSbEl1Zzg/edit) by William Z. Foster, 1951. Covers the whole of the Americas from the pre-colonial period onwards

[Ismail]

Scanned Lenin's Impact on the United States and a Lenin compilation entitled On the United States of America. There's also a Soviet compilation of everything Marx and Engels wrote on the USA, but finding it for a reasonable price is difficult.

Although for the benefit of British users:
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-QWltUzlCQThuLWM/edit (Marx and Engels On Britain)
* https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-Sk1xVE9zNFkwNEk/edit (Lenin On Britain)

[Five Year Plan]

I came across a most amusing review of the "Jack Hardy" book you posted as a pdf. The review is by Louis Hacker, who flirted with the CPUSA back in the 1930s before, as a result of the supposed triumph of the New Deal, turning sharply to the right in the 1940s, a political trajectory all too common with these academic types.

Here it is, published the American Historical Review in 1937. I had already been chuckling at the mention of a revolutionary dictatorship, but by the time I got to the bolded part, I completely lost it:


WITH a view to furnishing "students and workers with a Marxist survey of the first American Revolution" and in order "to preserve the revolutionary traditions of the American people" (Editor's Foreword, p. II), the American Communist party is sponsoring this book. Neither the author nor the editor, both of whom are pseudonymous, has been associated previously with historical scholarship. The book is in line with the current communist policy of identifying communism with the American past for the purpose of effecting a so-called People's Front in defense of democratic rights against fascism. It should be said at once that the book is interesting only as a curious exercise in the use of history to serve political ends, for there is nothing in it that will attract the student of American history other than, perhaps, its gaucheries in writing and its many naive errors in fact. Among the more amusing of the latter are the talk of the existence of the "dictatorship of the revolutionary party", the effort to depict Samuel Adams as a veritable Robespierre, and the termination of the recital with the year 1783 instead of 1789. This last is done purposely, for it spares the author and editor the embarrassment of explaining how Washington and Samuel Adams, for example, turned out to be less than "people's" heroes. The present reviewer, however, is a little less than amused, for he is a leading victim of this enterprise. Not only the title but the basic idea of the book--the inevitability of the Revolutionary crisis of 1763-75--has been lifted from his writings, particularly his essay "The First American Revolution" (Columbia University Quarterly, XXVII, Sept., 1935, 259-95). Of course there is no acknowledgment. Nor, in a number of cases, have author and editor bothered to change the phrasing of the reviewer's formulation. A good many examples could be presented to show the identity of key words in the "revised" version and the original version; space, however, suffices for only two:

"HARDY" AND "ENMALE" (p. 13) .... the protection of British capital was by far more important than the raising of colonial revenue. The quick repeal of the Stamp and Townshend Acts indicates the validity of this conclusion.

HACKER (p. 290). If in the raising of a colonial revenue lay the heart of the difficulty, how are we to account for the quick repeal of the Stamp Tax and the Townshend Acts ... ?

"HARDY" AND "ENMALE" (p. 22, n.). In 1705, a Pennsylvania law for building up the shoemaking industry was disallowed; one year later a New York act for developing sail-cloth manufacturing was forbidden. Similarly, in 1756, a Massachusetts ordinance for encouraging the production of linen was declared null and void. In its zeal to protect British manufacturers, the Board of Trade stopped at nothing. In 1706, 1707 and 1708, it went so far as to reject laws passed by Virginia and Maryland providing for the establishment of new towns on the ground that such new communities must inevitably lead to the founding of industries.

HACKER (pp. 283-84). Thus, in 1705, a Pennsylvania law for building up the shoemaking industry was disallowed.... And in 1706, a New York law for developing the sail-cloth industry was disallowed.... And in 1756, a Massachusetts law for encouraging the production of linen was disallowed. . . . Nothing was too minute to escape the Board's attention in its zeal to protect English merchant capitalism. So, in 1706, 1707 and 1708, it went so far as to call for the rejection of laws passed in Virginia and Maryland providing for the establishment of new towns, on the grounds that such new communities must invariably lead to a desire to found manufacturing industries.

Columbia University. Louis M. HACKER.

[Ismail]

Hardy's book was pretty much the first attempt of its kind. As one academic noted, "though today's reader will find certain omissions and shortcomings in Hardy's book, the importance of this work in formulating the Marxist concept of the American Revolution should not be underestimated." (Russian-American Dialogue on the American Revolution, 1995, p. 33.) Another source, in comparing Hacker's The Triumph of American Capitalism with Hardy's work, said that "Hacker was an economist at Columbia whose interpretation circulated in the 1950s (long after he recanted his youthful exuberance), probably because it fit the caricature of Marxism as economic determinism. At the other pole was a book by Jack Hardy, The First American Revolution, brought out by International Publishers; Hardy read the Sons of Liberty radicals as if they were a vanguard party leading the masses to revolution. Becker's dual revolution and Jameson's social movement were understated in Hacker and overstated in Hardy." (Whose American Revolution was It?, 2011, p. 76.)

Hardy was better when writing about labor; his book The Clothing Workers is actually highly regarded that field. He was also editor of the first compilation of Marx and Engels' writings on the American Civil War.

As far as Hacker's accusation of plagiarism goes, Hardy does actually cite his article in pages 73 and 154 of the book, and the foreword by the editor (Enmale) says of Hardy's effort that "its originality lies not so much in the material offered as in the way that material has been presented."

The works by Anna Rochester and Herbert Morais are certainly more valuable and reliable, but Hardy's work is still of interest.

[Five Year Plan]

As far as Hacker's accusation of plagiarism goes, Hardy does actually cite his article in pages 73 and 154 of the book, and the foreword by the editor (Enmale) says of Hardy's effort that "its originality lies not so much in the material offered as in the way that material has been presented."

I think you miss the point. You can't just quote huge chunks of text from another person's work throughout the entirety of your book, then just insert a single citation into the bibliography (plus one mention when elaborating on a point made in a footnote on page 73). You have to cite the work every time you invoke an argument from that book and every time you reproduce the linguistic constructions of another author. "Hardy" failed to do that. That was Hacker's point, and it was a legitimate point.

If Hardy had been in high school, he would have failed his writing assignment. If he had been in college, as a student or as a professor, he would have been sent before a university disciplinary board of some kind.


The works by Anna Rochester and Herbert Morais are certainly more valuable and reliable, but Hardy's work is still of interest.Actually I looked up reviews of Rochester's work, and those seem equally damning, albeit not as funny, which is why I didn't post them. I actually agree with those reviewers' criticisms that to talk about capitalism in colonial North America throughout the 17th century is highly problematic.

Morais, on the other hand, at least seemed to have his shit together.

[Ismail]

Actually I looked up reviews of Rochester's work, and those seem equally damning, albeit not as funny, which is why I didn't post them. I actually agree with those reviewers' criticisms that to talk about capitalism in colonial North America throughout the 17th century is highly problematic.You ought to present one of those reviews then, since all of those I could find were by non-Marxists obviously skeptical about Marxist analysis to begin with (and she is hardly the only person to argue that capitalism did exist in the American colonies in the 17th century.) That isn't "equally damning" unless Rochester was also accused of plagiarism and writing a work that solely existed to promote the CPUSA's political line.

And I wasn't disputing that Hardy did take a fair bit from Hacker without attribution.

[Five Year Plan]

You ought to present one of those reviews then, since all of those I could find were by non-Marxists obviously skeptical about Marxist analysis to begin with (and she is hardly the only person to argue that capitalism did exist in the American colonies in the 17th century.) That isn't "equally damning" unless Rochester was also accused of plagiarism and writing a work that solely existed to promote the CPUSA's political line.

And I wasn't disputing that Hardy did take a fair bit from Hacker without attribution.

Subsistence agriculture, and production to meet need, on small family plots is not capitalism. And if you think it is, you are working from a different understanding of capitalism than Marx and Engels did.

[Ismail]

While I'm not going to pretend that the Soviet revisionists had a proper grasp of Marxism, this is how they describe capitalist development in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia of the 70s:

The socioeconomic development of the 13 English colonies in North America had as its basis elements of the capitalist order. (The New England colonies were Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island; the Middle Atlantic colonies were New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware; and the Southern colonies were Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.) The New England and Middle Atlantic colonies primarily had a small-scale farming economy; in the second half of the 17th century capitalist manufacturing began to develop. There were also certain elements of feudalism in agriculture, although attempts by the ruling upper classes to monopolize rights to the land and to establish feudal rule in the vast uncolonized lands were doomed to failure. Conflicts between the American farmers and feudal elements were often resolved by the granting of squatter’s rights and, in certain instances, by armed struggle against large landowners. The social struggle, which took on various forms, included a number of anticolonial uprisings, for example, the one led by N. Bacon in Virginia in 1676 and the one led by J. Leisler in New York from 1689 to 1691....

As the economic development of the colonies proceeded apace, conflicts with the mother country arose. The English bourgeoisie regarded the colonies as a source of raw materials and a market for English industry. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries the English government adopted various measures to suppress industrial development in the colonies. However, the development of capitalism, the gradual establishment of a unified market in the colonies, and the strengthening of ties among the colonies led to the emergence of a North American nation....

The Revolution brought about the overthrow of the colonial yoke and the formation of an independent nation—the United States of America. On July 4,1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. In accordance with the Peace Treaty of Versailles of 1783, Great Britain recognized American independence. The Revolution eliminated elements of feudalism in landownership. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 converted the western lands into general state property; this extremely important progressive measure created the prerequisites for the capitalist development of agriculture in the northern part of the country.

[Five Year Plan]

I am confused by your decision to blockquote the "Great" Soviet Encyclopedia. Are you suggesting you endorse their summary of the development of the colonial economy, or are you saying it is a revisionist work that should be rejected? And are you saying that Rochester's views also represented the views of revisionist elements within the Communist Party?

[Ismail]

I am confused by your decision to blockquote the "Great" Soviet Encyclopedia. Are you suggesting you endorse their summary of the development of the colonial economy, or are you saying it is a revisionist work that should be rejected? And are you saying that Rochester's views also represented the views of revisionist elements within the Communist Party?I'm saying that you seem to hold that the idea that there existed capitalist elements in 17th-century colonial America apparently makes the person putting forward such views either incompetent (you say that unlike Rochester, Morais "at least seemed to have his shit together") or intentionally trying to distort the works of Marx and Engels for ulterior (probably "Stalinist") aims, even though Trotskyite historians of the USA like George Novack also held that capitalist relations existed at the time.

Also the Great Soviet Encyclopedia existed from 1925 onwards, "great" is in its title.

[Five Year Plan]

I'm saying that you seem to hold that the idea that there existed capitalist elements in 17th-century colonial America apparently makes the person putting forward such views either incompetent (you say that unlike Rochester, Morais "at least seemed to have his shit together") or intentionally trying to distort the works of Marx and Engels for ulterior (probably "Stalinist") aims, even though Trotskyite historians of the USA like George Novack also held that capitalist relations existed at the time.

Also the Great Soviet Encyclopedia existed from 1925 onwards, "great" is in its title.

If George Novack claimed that the capitalist mode of production existed in the 17th century American colonies, he is, to put it bluntly, wrong. Your problem here seems to be a refusal to see any comments from a perspective other than your distorted prism of "Marxism-Leninism" vs Trotskyism, with any criticism a Trotskyist makes being an unprincipled attack on "Marxism-Leninism" rather than just an actual attempt to iron out the issues under discussion. It's perfectly possible for Rochester to be wrong, even if she agrees with that evil Trotskyite wrecker George Novack. You see, in the magical world of Trotskyism, it's permitted for people to take opposing sides of a single issue without having to worry about being purged.

But since you mentioned it, I would be curious to see where Novack discusses the capitalist mode of production existing in the North American colonies in the 17th century.

And, yes, I know that "Great" is in the title. I put quotes around it, because I find its own grandiose claims to consistently high quality to be questionable.

[Ismail]

From America's Revolutionary Heritage (edited by him, and these quotes are from his articles in it):

Pages 14-15: "The creation and extension of a world market based upon an international division of labor for the first time supplied the impetus and incentives for an unprecedented growth of commerce along capitalist lines.... The coastal colonies were outposts of business enterprise, branches of the budding, bustling commercial capitalism which flourished under monarchical regimes as in France, or under republican auspices as in Holland and Cromwellian England. This fact holds the chief clue to American history after 1492. Its quintessence consists in the introduction, establishment, and expansion of capitalist relations on American soil."

Page 16: "Since capitalism is international by its very nature, it is impossible to understand the central developments in any period of American history since the end of the sixteenth century without considering its connections with what was happening in the whole of the capitalist system... The New World was opened up by the Old as part of its leap from feudalism to capitalism, and the North American colonies were the transatlantic offspring of the European money-makers... The main paths of colonial history from the first overseas expeditions to the last musket fired at Yorktown were marked out by the impulses and requirements emanating from the capitalist world market headquartered in Western Europe."

Pages 169-70: "But long after [slavery] had vanished from the centers of European society it was reborn in the New World at the dawn of capitalist civilization, and it continued to flourish in the bosom of the capitalist system for three centuries and a half... American society, the child of European capitalism, reproduced not only the features of its parent but also those of its more remote ancestors. Almost every form of social relationship known to humankind sprang up on the soil of the New World, either in a pure form or in a medley of combinations."

My issue isn't that you're saying Rochester was wrong, it's that you're acting as if she was an idiot for even suggesting that capitalism existed in the colonies in the 17th Century.


And, yes, I know that "Great" is in the title. I put quotes around it, because I find its own grandiose claims to consistently high quality to be questionable."Great" refers to the scope of the subjects covered, not "hey this is a great resource to learn about the counterrevolutionary nature of Trotskyism" or whatever.

[Five Year Plan]

From America's Revolutionary Heritage (edited by him, and these quotes are from his articles in it):

Pages 14-15: "The creation and extension of a world market based upon an international division of labor for the first time supplied the impetus and incentives for an unprecedented growth of commerce along capitalist lines.... The coastal colonies were outposts of business enterprise, branches of the budding, bustling commercial capitalist which flourished under monarchical regimes as in France, or under republican auspices as in Holland and Cromwellian England. This fact holds the chief clue to American history after 1492. Its quintessence consists in the introduction, establishment, and expansion of capitalist relations on American soil."

This is the rather uncontroversial claim that the colonies were a part of a world capitalist system seeking raw materials through primitive accumulation, and were, by and large, founded by chartered companies seeking to turn a profit in one way or another. This is different than the claim that the capitalist mode of production existed on New England farms in the 17th century, a claim that is difficult to take seriously.


Page 16: "Since capitalism is international by its very nature, it is impossible to understand the central developments in any period of American history since the end of the sixteenth century without considering its connections with what was happening in the whole of the capitalist system... The New World was opened up by the Old as part of its leap from feudalism to capitalism, and the North American colonies were the transatlantic offspring of the European money-makers... The main paths of colonial history from the first overseas expeditions to the last musket fired at Yorktown were marked out by the impulses and requirements emanating from the capitalist world market headquartered in Western Europe."This is making the same point as your first quote. Nobody would dispute that the North American colonies were a part of a world capitalist system that did, eventually, penetrate into the very heart of the way production took place on North America. But it had not done so until 18th century at the earliest, and not to any significant degree until the War of 1812 closed trade routes vital to merchants in New England, who then invested their (theretofore merchant) capital in domestic manufactures.


Pages 169-70: "But long after [slavery] had vanished from the centers of European society it was reborn in the New World at the dawn of capitalist civilization, and it continued to flourish in the bosom of the capitalist system for three centuries and a half... American society, the child of European capitalism, reproduced not only the features of its parent but also those of its more remote ancestors. Almost every form of social relationship known to humankind sprang up on the soil of the New World, either in a pure form or in a medley of combinations."See above. Saying the colonies can't be comprehended apart from a world with burgeoning capitalism is different than saying that the capitalist mode of production existed on New England soil. I was curious if you were going to provide quotes about plantation slavery operating according to the capitalist mode of production, which is a lot more debatable than the idea that Puritan farms in 1650 were capitalist. All you've managed to muster here are claims that even bourgeois historians would not dispute.

[Ismail]

No one is claiming that the capitalist mode of production actually existed in the American colonies in the 17th century. If you'd actually glance at Rochester's work (rather than try to discredit it by talking about brief reviews by bourgeois writers) you'd know that she is not saying anything different from Novack.

[Five Year Plan]

No one is claiming that the capitalist mode of production actually existed in the American colonies in the 17th century.

I'm glad we've cleared that up. Maybe Rochester should change the title of her book, then, so as not to conflate merchant capital ventures from oversees companies, with a capitalist mode of production existing on North American soil.


If you'd actually glance at Rochester's work (rather than try to discredit it by talking about brief reviews by bourgeois writers) you'd know that she is not saying anything different from Novack.Saying that reviewers panned her book is a fact. I've not read her book in-depth. I've just x-rayed it, but from what I can see in her treatment of the early agricultural enterprises (e.g., the section "Farming in the Colonies"), she doesn't make vital distinctions between the purposes for which southern and northern farmers undertook cultivation. In New England, incorporation and business were essentially fronts for a primarily religious undertaking, and not earnest attempts at being successful in the hustle-and-bustle world of commerce. (In fact, this opens up a potentially interesting way to talk about the link between Calvinist religious ideas and transgressive religious sects, the link between the Reformation and the rise of communalism among the peasantry in less developed parts of Europe, and the rise of the petty bourgeoisie in England: it's no accident that the majority of settlers to New England were of the middling sort.) She talks about the profitability of export, the amount of trade taking place, and leaves it at that, which creates a totally one-sided and misleading impression of the relationship between the colonies and the global capitalist system. When combined with her book title, the criticisms leveled at her by the reviewers I read are not as unfair as you seem to think.

Does that mean I am seeking to "discredit her"? No. There are other, stronger parts of her book. Or at least they appear to be stronger based on my perusal. But you have this tendency of feeling pressured to defend every word written by an individual or a person, unless you fall victim to apostasy and betrayal of the revolutionary cause. Life is a lot more subtle than that.

[genjer]

In New England, incorporation and business were essentially fronts for a primarily religious undertaking, and not earnest attempts at being successful in the hustle-and-bustle world of commerce.
If being religious disqualifies someone from being a capitalist, that means capitalism did not even exist in Europe at the time, since the bourgeois states in England and Holland were just fronts for Puritanism, Calvinism etc. The USA would even be feudalist today in 2014 since so many of our ruling class are religious fucks (pardon my French).

[Five Year Plan]

If being religious disqualifies someone from being a capitalist, that means capitalism did not even exist in Europe at the time, since the bourgeois states in England and Holland were just fronts for Puritanism, Calvinism etc. The USA would even be feudalist today in 2014 since so many of our ruling class are religious fucks (pardon my French).

A persuasive rebuttal to a claim, that being religious precludes somebody from being a capitalist, I obviously did not make.

[Ismail]

I'm glad we've cleared that up. Maybe Rochester should change the title of her book, then, so as not to conflate merchant capital ventures from oversees companies, with a capitalist mode of production existing on North American soil.The title seems fine to me, considering that it's meant to imply the origins of American capitalism.


Saying that reviewers panned her book is a fact.Can you give examples? I can only find a single, short review (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2113525?uid=3739832&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104375908387) which implies that her use of the "Marxian crayon" distorts her research, and takes issue with her using Charles Beard's analysis of the US Constitution "uncritically" (his work was seen as too close to Marxism in the eyes of an increasingly anti-communist academia of the time, as opposed to the Marxist assessment of his work which notes its limitations from the viewpoint of historical materialism.) He also claims that her treatment of Alexander Hamilton "betrays a lack of understanding of his purposes and services to the country," even though other ostensibly Marxists works I've read have the same treatment of Hamilton's role (e.g. Novack.)

[Five Year Plan]

The title seems fine to me, considering that it's meant to imply the origins of American capitalism.

Can you give examples? I can only find a single, short review (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2113525?uid=3739832&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104375908387) which implies that her use of the "Marxian crayon" distorts her research, and takes issue with her using Charles Beard's analysis of the US Constitution "uncritically" (his work was seen as too close to Marxism in the eyes of an increasingly anti-communist academia of the time, as opposed to the Marxist assessment of his work which notes its limitations from the viewpoint of historical materialism.) He also claims that her treatment of Alexander Hamilton "betrays a lack of understanding of his purposes and services to the country," even though other ostensibly Marxists works I've read have the same treatment of Hamilton's role (e.g. Novack.)

There are reviews by Oscar Handlin (in the William & Mary Quarterly), Broadus Mitchell (in the Journal of Economic History), and Harold Williamson (in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science). So if you can only find "one short review," then you aren't doing your homework. Not that it matters, since you'll almost certainly chalk up to all criticisms of Rochester to people wanting to discredit her Marxism (for more on this methodology of yours, see above).

Also, for your info, Beard wasn't a Marxist, and people knew he wasn't a Marxist. He wasn't even a "progressive." He was a conservative who happened to subscribe to a highly rigid economic-determinist historical methodology that was widely associated, wrongly of course, with Marxism.

When I say that all the reviews are damning, I am referring to the way in which all of them are correctly pointing out that a single-minded fixation on abstract categories can overpower and distort your analysis if you aren't attentive the gap between the extent to which those categories explain what occurred, and how the historical actors themselves might have experienced them. There's often a lot of room for maneuver within whatever abstract economic interest might supposedly dictate. Taken to its most extreme, as in the work of Rochester, a failure to account for this leads to the impression that the Puritans set out for the New World to trade and make money. Keep in mind that's just one small portion of her book that I've focused on. I wouldn't be surprised if the book were filled with a lot more of these problems.

[genjer]

A persuasive rebuttal to a claim, that being religious precludes somebody from being a capitalist, I obviously did not make.
You obviously did say that capitalism didn't exist in 17th-Century New England because the capitalists were Puritans. That isn't Marxist analysis. The ideology of a person does not trump their class character. Were there shopkeepers, artisans and merchants in America or not? And how is that not (primitive) capitalism? Most of the economy was based on farming but that was true in Europe too, so are you saying capitalism didn't exist in Europe either?

Ideology can not be separated from class. Sure, the Puritans were fleeing religious persecution, but why were there religious wars in Europe in the first place? They weren't just killing each other over frivolous dogma. Protestantism represented bourgeois interests in rebellion against the feudal system. In England the Puritans had been fighting for a bourgeois state that afforded greater freedom of trade to the bourgeoisie, so you can't counterpose their flight from religious persecution to their bourgeois class character. They had a proto-capitalist ideology and they set up the beginnings of a capitalist economy in New England.

[Ismail]

There are reviews by Oscar Handlin (in the William & Mary Quarterly), Broadus Mitchell (in the Journal of Economic History), and Harold Williamson (in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science). So if you can only find "one short review," then you aren't doing your homework.Mitchell's article was the one I mentioned, since I searched JSTOR, which is the only academic source I have access to through others. I can't locate Handlin's review. As for Williamson (http://ann.sagepub.com/content/268/1/230.extract), his is also brief but calls the book a "short, somewhat lively, but superficial account of American history up to 1800" and says it failed to convince him of the validity of Marxist analysis. It's not at all equally damning (I am comparing these to Hacker's response to Hardy's book), just a review by an advocate of capitalism.


Also, for your info, Beard wasn't a Marxist, and people knew he wasn't a Marxist. He wasn't even a "progressive." He was a conservative who happened to subscribe to a highly rigid economic-determinist historical methodology that was widely associated, wrongly of course, with Marxism.I don't know how you read my post and came away thinking I said Beard was a Marxist. Again, Beard's work (which he himself generally moved away from by the end of his life) was seen by the 50s as being too close to Marxism (Marxist writers certainly made wide use of both his work on the Constitution and his Rise of American Civilization) for comfort, and efforts were made to discredit it for this reason. Much in the same way attacks on atheism increased, obviously not because atheism = Marxism.

[Sinister Intents]

This is quite awesome those works you scanned! Thanks for posting it, but I keep getting a Certificate Error :(

[Ismail]

This is quite awesome those works you scanned! Thanks for posting it, but I keep getting a Certificate Error :(Try downloading them from here: click (https://archive.org/search.php?query=uploader%3A%22kocotosi%40gmail.co m%22&sort=-publicdate).

[Five Year Plan]

Ismail, not sure if you have access to this book, but this one definitely should be added to the collection of scanned International Publishers books: James Allen's Reconstruction: The Battle for Democracy (1937), which seems to me be a remarkable early monograph countering the racist Dunning school's interpretation back when it was hegemonic.

[Sinister Intents]

FUCK YES! I'm actually very excited to read these :)

[Ismail]

I don't have permission to scan Allen's work, nor do I own it although it is available used at a cheap price. I might ask about it next year.

I own another book that was originally published by IP as well, The History of the American Working Class by Anthony Bimba, 380 pages of ostensible glory, but the edition I have is from Greenwood Press (it's a 1968 reprint of the third edition from 1936) so it's probably copyrighted.

[Five Year Plan]

I don't have permission to scan Allen's work, nor do I own it although it is available used at a cheap price. I might ask about it next year.

I own another book that was originally published by IP as well, The History of the American Working Class by Anthony Bimba, 380 pages of ostensible glory, but the edition I have is from Greenwood Press (it's a 1968 reprint of the third edition from 1936) so it's probably copyrighted.

I don't understand how you have permission to scan some IP titles, but not others? Who is making these decisions?

[Ismail]

I don't understand how you have permission to scan some IP titles, but not others? Who is making these decisions?I contacted International Publishers, which it turns out means contacting their President, Betty Smith. She gave me permission to scan the books I've scanned thus far.

I did not get permission to scan William Z. Foster's History of the Communist Party of the United States from 1952 (according to her it's "a bit one-sided, and now and again we have thought of reprinting it with a balanced, helpful new Introduction. So far our plans haven't jelled.") Nor did I get permission to scan Herbert Aptheker's The Colonial Era from 1959 ("we might decide to reprint it, and would not permit a digital version at this time. Contact us again in a year or so.")

[Five Year Plan]

I contacted International Publishers, which it turns out means contacting their President, Betty Smith. She gave me permission to scan the books I've scanned thus far.

I did not get permission to scan William Z. Foster's History of the Communist Party of the United States from 1952 (according to her it's "a bit one-sided, and now and again we have thought of reprinting it with a balanced, helpful new Introduction. So far our plans haven't jelled.") Nor did I get permission to scan Herbert Aptheker's The Colonial Era from 1959 ("we might decide to reprint it, and would not permit a digital version at this time. Contact us again in a year or so.")

So what was Smith's rationale for not allowing the Allen book? I doubt they're going to reprint it, but if anything, based on the quick skim I have given it, it's a book that was decades ahead of its time and actually seems to be one of the strongest history books IP has put out.

[Ismail]

I didn't ask about Allen's book. The last book I asked if I could scan was a 1947 biography of Joseph Weydemeyer, which I intend to get in the near future alongside the work by Francis Franklin mentioned in the first post. I got permission for this. I'll probably ask about Allen's work early next year and see if I can get permission, if yes then I'll strongly consider buying and scanning it, if not then I'll get something else to buy and scan.