In a word, yes.
Results 1 to 20 of 20
A People's History of the U.S.
Can Howard Zinn be understood as a Marxist historian, in that he analyzes history from the perspective of class relations and in the contradictions that exist in society?
Last edited by Wobblie; 16th January 2010 at 19:16.
"An injury to one is an injury to all!"
In a word, yes.
Text of A People's History of the United States if you havent read it.
RED DAVE
Howard Zinn is a great asset to the communist perspective because of his known dedication in bringing truth within history, & not just any kind of truth, but workers truth as well.
Thanks for the link Dave, but I own the book. This is where I got the idea that he should be considered a Marxist historian, because in my reading PHofUS I see his focus on the contradictions of the capitalist society as well as on how class structure shapes much of our history.
"An injury to one is an injury to all!"
Don't be so quick to be uncritical of Zinn. His work has been great, yes, but he has a problem with one-sidedness. In his attempt to counter the "official" historiography, he bends too far in the other direction, often times dismissing or minimizing the socially-progressive elements of historical events. By doing so, he sometimes leads people to draw reactionary conclusions about revolutionary events. My best advice with Zinn is to read him in conjunction with other historians' works, and not rely on his writings alone.
Can you give us an example of what you are asserting?
RED DAVE
Probably the best example is his treatment of the American Civil War and Reconstruction. Zinn treats them as little more than a dirty little conflict with no redeeming social value (or, more to the point, a dirty little conflict with a residual social value) and a period where "equality" is merely a vehicle for Northern capitalist exploitation.
Compare Zinn's treatment of the Civil War and Reconstruction with that of James McPherson, Eric and Phil Foner, and W.E.B. DuBois. In comparison to these four historians, Zinn seems cynical to the point of being reactionary about the changes that resulted from the Civil War and Reconstruction. And it's especially problematic since Zinn draws from the works of these four for his book.
Zinn does a great service by popularizing the "other half" of history -- just as great historians like John Henrik Clarke and others do. But it is only the "other half", and not the full picture.
Thanks for your reply. Let me think about that. Haven't read Zinn in about three years.Originally Posted by RED DAVE
RED DAVE
I can't talk about how he treats the subject in the book, but I think the perspective that he offers a speech of his, called the "Three Holy Wars" which is available on youtube (would link it but I am not allowed to), is a not so much a criticism of the cause of the war but the use of war. Maybe this point isn't very pertinent to this discussion, but from my understanding of the above post I think it may help shed some light on Zinn's perspective. But I agree with Dave, this will give me something to think about as I read through PHofUS.
"An injury to one is an injury to all!"
Regardless of what Howard Zinn says, the civil war was a dirty little conflict with only a residual social value, and equality was merely a vehicle for capitalist expansion. If that is what Howard Zinn is writing, then he is right. Of course, I do understand what you mean about showing only the "other half" of the picture sometimes.
Zinn is one of my personal heroes and his work should definitely be considered a great asset to our movement. But I also think Miles is 100% correct.
First off, the French (and less explicitly) American revolutions were vehicles for establishing a capitalist order - but these were PROGRESSIVE events in the more progressive stage of capitalism as a force of greater social mobility and freedom over the feudal (or in this case slave) system. The defeat of the slavocracy, the biggest single transfer of wealth from the rulers to the people (emancipation for slaves) in US history and the expansion of democracy to more southern whites and the the freemen are progressive. Just compare it to what happened when radical reconstruction was abandoned by the northern Republicans and rolled back by elites in the South - blacks and poor whites were disenfranchised, put into unending debt, blacks were terrorized into submission, blacks were murdered, and the entire region remained economically backwards (by capitalist standards) for the next 100 years. It was a counter-revolution of the capitalist revolution (US civil war).
I suggest reading some of the works by the authors cited by Miles. W.E.B. DuBois is a must read for any radical who wants to read the basis for a radical understanding of the history of race in the US - again to be read critically as with anything. Eric Foner's work on the civil war and reconstruction are amazing and will really give you the scope of the radical societal transformation that occurred in the Civil War/Reconstruction era. You can also read what Marx has to say about Lincoln, the Civil War, and how the conflict can not be seen as anything but about slavery.
Last edited by Jimmie Higgins; 17th January 2010 at 01:22.
Oh, I hope this is sarcasm.
I disagree. Chattel slavery in the West was a capitalist institution, and the US Civil War wasn't a "capitalist revolution." I would say it was a conflict between two camps of capitalists. Chattel slavery consisted of buying and selling slaves on a market and the full value of slave labor was extracted. Slaves did not receive any value of their labor.
Zinn is all right, I'm not a huge fan of him by any means, but he makes good points and has decent analyses.
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT][FONT=Arial Narrow]
[/FONT]
Wealth in the south was not based on the trading of slaves, the salve trade with Africa and the Caribbean didn't even exist by the time of the Civil War. The southern ruling class based its power and wealth on land and slave ownership.
Even if you define the slave system as a kind of capitalist take on slavery, the two capitalist modes were opposing with one being historically more progressive while the other was a much more regressive version of capitalism. Additionally the two systems were in eachother's way: one could not thrive while the other existed. There were sharp economic and social differences between the north and south due to the two systems. Even by the American revolution, the north and south were more similar economically, but by the civil war, the north was industrializing and the south was stagnant. The southern eliete needed land and slaves for their wealth while the north was becoming more about manufacturing and distribution and trade.
Well, one state did still base its wealth on trading slaves. Much of South Carolina's wealth, however, came from the internal slave trade -- buying and selling slaves within the American territory. In fact, by 1860, there were not only more slaves than free people in the state, most of the plantations were making more money off the breeding of slaves for export and sale in other states than off of their crops. It's the one exception, though, that proves the rule when it comes to the American slave trade.
There's a reason why wage labour prevailed over this form of slave labour. The slaveowner couldn't fire the slaves, and had to personally "provide for them" (value received by the slaves) within his property.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
Zinn's A People's History of the United States and his companion volume Voices of a People's History of the United States are a good general history of the US.
For particular periods, others have suggested in-depth studies mentioned above. For a history of labor in the US, Philip Foner's 8 volume study is excellent. For a general in-depth history of the US there's Page Smith's 8 volume People's History of the United States (no relation to Zinn's book), going up to 1940. Smith's calls it "people's history" because he makes extensive use of primary sources such as diaries, letters, official testimonies, legal records, etc. Along these lines, Charles Reznikoff's Testimony: the United States (1885-1915) Recitative is based entirely on court records of industrial accidents, law suits, and criminal cases.
Has anyone read
A Peoples History of the World by Chris Harman
or
The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World by Vijay Prashad, Howard Zinn
I saw these some where and enjoyed A Peoples history of the US.
but also agree that in order to get a grander view you need to supplement it with other books (which i think should be the case on any topic/book, never trust one source completely.)
I've read a People's History of the American Revolution, People's History of the US war in Vietnam, and A People's History of Sports. "Sports" was entertaining and is great to lend to people who have good political instincts but tend to shy away from politics. "Vietnam" was also good, but it was a lot of re-hash for me and I've read several other books that covered the same ground.
All three were worthwhile but "American Revolution" also suffers from some strange ultra-leftism: sometimes he seems to argue that the Revolution happened because of popular anger at elites while at other times he argues it only reflected the interests of the colonial elites (as Zinn also argues in the original People's History book). There was definitely a tension in the Revolution between conservative and more radical elements of the revolutionary leadership, but there was also a lot of anger by small farmers, unemployed mobs and other "common people" that intensified as the Revolution approached. It's one thing to argue that the revolutionary leadership had no interest or intention of the real (land, rent, tax) reforms being demanded by these people - but I don't agree that most colonial people were indifferent and the war was just one group of elites fighting another. I'd still recommend it for all the anecdotes and ammunition revolutionaries can take from it.
I read Harman's book and I thought it was great as an overview and really useful as a basic Marxist look at Western Civ. I've read a lot about many of the things he spends a lot of time talking about (I think 1/3 or the book is just on the 20th century) even these sections helped me look at certain events in a larger context of social development and so on. I'm also pretty deficient in my historical understanding of pre-imperial/colonial China and India and so reading about the development of feudalism in China and rebellions of merchants was really fantastic and I wish I knew of some other books that take up this history from a Marxist perspective.
So I think it's useful as both an introduction as well as a way for people with some historical knowledge to look at history in a different way that puts historical developments into context.
I haven't read the People's History of the Third World, but I would like to hear impressions from anyone who has read it.
