10 ms·

I vehemently disagreed with Zinn when I tried reading "A People's History" a few years ago, but I was much more naive then. I have realized that corruption is t

by barnaby 17y ago

I vehemently disagreed with Zinn when I tried reading "A People's History" a few years ago, but I was much more naive then. I have realized that corruption is the norm, and that when people fight back, through organized labor or through revolution, there's usually a good reason for it. I'm even more skeptical that communism would magically fix the wrongs Zinn railed against, for the same reasons democracy hasn't fixed it. But I do have to say, that I am glad someone like Zinn wrote prolifically to stand up for the little guy, for us. RIP.

barnaby 17y ago
So judging by the comments, I was wrong to have assume he was communist... back in my younger more naive days. I should probably re-read "A People's History"... except it's already reserved solid for the next 6 months in the SF Public Library system. Go figure.
rgrieselhuber 17y ago
I never got the impression from his writings that communism was the alternative he was advocating.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  I could only stomach the first 10 pages, and quit. But that little peak certainly made me think of socialism. And I don't see how socialism is looking out for the little guy, either. To look out for individuals you need a liberal (in the classical sense) philosophy of individual liberty. Socialism is built on a philosophy of collectivism, doing what's best for the community as a whole ("the needs of the many exceed the needs of the few, or the one"). The rhetoric about helping the little guy is just what monsters like Lenin and Mao find it easiest to use to hoodwink the masses.
  - Retric 17y ago
    I think it's a non corrupt court system that most helps the little guy. Few countries laws are nearly as corrupt as it's institutions. PS: As an ideology I suspect the roots of Socialism is the idea that no single individual adds as much to his individual well being as his society. In the case of modern industrial society this is clearly true (from an economic prospective), if somewhat misguided because some individuals contribute far more to society than others.
  - b-man 17y ago
    I could only stomach the first 10 pages, and quit. But that little peak certainly made me think of socialism. 10 pages is enough to link the guy to socialism? really? The rhetoric about helping the little guy is just what monsters like Lenin and Mao find it easiest to use to hoodwink the masses. Monsters use any rhetoric they think will fit at their historic moment. This is just a red shirted example of Godwin's law.
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      10 pages is enough to link the guy to socialism? really? Maybe not to start a conversation. But when chiming in to support someone else's claim, and with the clear caveat, then yes, I think it's perfectly OK. Monsters use any rhetoric they think will fit at their historic moment. Show me a monster since the advent of socialism that did not use it as its justification. The only one I can think of is Pinochet in Chile (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973#Casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973#Casualties ), and even that needs a very loose definition of monster. Certainly the chart-toppers like Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Kim, Pol Pot, Hitler preached socialism. (I'll grant that they generally didn't understand the concept very well, but the point is that it's what they advocated to their partisans and people as the ultimate solution)
      - b-man 17y ago
        Specifically one from my own country, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_da_Costa_e_Silva http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_da_Costa_e_Silva Argentina's story is a bit more brutal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Argentina_(1966%E2%80%931973) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Argentina_(1966%E2%8... All over South America during the 60~80 there were numerous 'capitalist' brutal dictatorships. And then there's more, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi Never forget, what makes you a monster is not that you killed millions, but that you were willing to do it in order to maintain your power.
        17y ago
- netcan 17y ago
  A lot of his rhetoric seems to based on communism. That is, he sees classes as distinct entities acting with intent. That is a Marxist-like approach to history, at least. I'm not that familiar with Zinn, but I don't think he tended to propose solutions, manifestos or such.
  - rgrieselhuber 17y ago
    Sure, I can definitely see a Marxist-like critique in his writings, but such a critique can be used to point to variety of alternative solutions, including a purer form of democracy than we currently have in the US.
    - netcan 17y ago
      A purer form of democracy is in fact what many more contemporary American (or Western) socialists such as social libertarians have advocated. Again, I can't think of any instances where Zinn proposes a "solution" other then enlightenment (eg' understand that we, the readers and writers of books have mostly been the jailers'[1]) so I wouldn't charecterise him as part of any of those movements. I think that you would classify his work as a part of the Marxist family of intellectual endeavour for other reasons. Since the most obvious effects of Communist thought were the political-economic systems inspired by it, we tend to think of Communism as being purely focused on these. But, an approach to historical analysis is as much a part of Marxist thought as economic analysis. Howard Zinn was a historian. [1] Quoted roughly & ineloquently from memory.
      - viggity 17y ago
        "American Socialists such as social libertarians" What? I see that as a contradiction in terms.
        netcan 17y ago
        A contradiction between which of those two word pairs ;) Seriously though, if you think of Socialism as a group of ideas across different fields, you find a lot of diversity once you get to the applied level. You can get anarchy (the aforementioned social libertarians and others tend towards anarchism) or totalitarianism. Direct democracy or dictatorship. Say you accept Marx's characterization of history as a struggle between classes, you are moved to rage by The Communist Manifesto,^ it describes the brutal no-nonsense history of civilization in a way that makes sense. There are lots of directions you can go from there. Obviously marx had some pretty specific applications which I read as leading to something not that far from bolshevism, but you don't have to agree with everything. ^I suggest that you read it. For most people, I suspect you'll quibble with bits and pieces that have since (it's been 150 years, after all) been subject to more trial and scrutiny. As a narrative, it is not without predictive power.

by barnaby 17y ago

barnaby 17y ago

So judging by the comments, I was wrong to have assume he was communist... back in my younger more naive days. I should probably re-read "A People's History"... except it's already reserved solid for the next 6 months in the SF Public Library system. Go figure.

rgrieselhuber 17y ago

I never got the impression from his writings that communism was the alternative he was advocating.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
I could only stomach the first 10 pages, and quit. But that little peak certainly made me think of socialism. And I don't see how socialism is looking out for the little guy, either. To look out for individuals you need a liberal (in the classical sense) philosophy of individual liberty. Socialism is built on a philosophy of collectivism, doing what's best for the community as a whole ("the needs of the many exceed the needs of the few, or the one"). The rhetoric about helping the little guy is just what monsters like Lenin and Mao find it easiest to use to hoodwink the masses.
- Retric 17y ago
  I think it's a non corrupt court system that most helps the little guy. Few countries laws are nearly as corrupt as it's institutions. PS: As an ideology I suspect the roots of Socialism is the idea that no single individual adds as much to his individual well being as his society. In the case of modern industrial society this is clearly true (from an economic prospective), if somewhat misguided because some individuals contribute far more to society than others.
- b-man 17y ago
  I could only stomach the first 10 pages, and quit. But that little peak certainly made me think of socialism. 10 pages is enough to link the guy to socialism? really? The rhetoric about helping the little guy is just what monsters like Lenin and Mao find it easiest to use to hoodwink the masses. Monsters use any rhetoric they think will fit at their historic moment. This is just a red shirted example of Godwin's law.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    10 pages is enough to link the guy to socialism? really? Maybe not to start a conversation. But when chiming in to support someone else's claim, and with the clear caveat, then yes, I think it's perfectly OK. Monsters use any rhetoric they think will fit at their historic moment. Show me a monster since the advent of socialism that did not use it as its justification. The only one I can think of is Pinochet in Chile (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973#Casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973#Casualties ), and even that needs a very loose definition of monster. Certainly the chart-toppers like Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Kim, Pol Pot, Hitler preached socialism. (I'll grant that they generally didn't understand the concept very well, but the point is that it's what they advocated to their partisans and people as the ultimate solution)
    - b-man 17y ago
      Specifically one from my own country, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_da_Costa_e_Silva http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_da_Costa_e_Silva Argentina's story is a bit more brutal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Argentina_(1966%E2%80%931973) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Argentina_(1966%E2%8... All over South America during the 60~80 there were numerous 'capitalist' brutal dictatorships. And then there's more, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi Never forget, what makes you a monster is not that you killed millions, but that you were willing to do it in order to maintain your power.
      - 17y ago
netcan 17y ago
A lot of his rhetoric seems to based on communism. That is, he sees classes as distinct entities acting with intent. That is a Marxist-like approach to history, at least. I'm not that familiar with Zinn, but I don't think he tended to propose solutions, manifestos or such.
- rgrieselhuber 17y ago
  Sure, I can definitely see a Marxist-like critique in his writings, but such a critique can be used to point to variety of alternative solutions, including a purer form of democracy than we currently have in the US.
  - netcan 17y ago
    A purer form of democracy is in fact what many more contemporary American (or Western) socialists such as social libertarians have advocated. Again, I can't think of any instances where Zinn proposes a "solution" other then enlightenment (eg' understand that we, the readers and writers of books have mostly been the jailers'[1]) so I wouldn't charecterise him as part of any of those movements. I think that you would classify his work as a part of the Marxist family of intellectual endeavour for other reasons. Since the most obvious effects of Communist thought were the political-economic systems inspired by it, we tend to think of Communism as being purely focused on these. But, an approach to historical analysis is as much a part of Marxist thought as economic analysis. Howard Zinn was a historian. [1] Quoted roughly & ineloquently from memory.
    - viggity 17y ago
      "American Socialists such as social libertarians" What? I see that as a contradiction in terms.
      - netcan 17y ago
        A contradiction between which of those two word pairs ;) Seriously though, if you think of Socialism as a group of ideas across different fields, you find a lot of diversity once you get to the applied level. You can get anarchy (the aforementioned social libertarians and others tend towards anarchism) or totalitarianism. Direct democracy or dictatorship. Say you accept Marx's characterization of history as a struggle between classes, you are moved to rage by The Communist Manifesto,^ it describes the brutal no-nonsense history of civilization in a way that makes sense. There are lots of directions you can go from there. Obviously marx had some pretty specific applications which I read as leading to something not that far from bolshevism, but you don't have to agree with everything. ^I suggest that you read it. For most people, I suspect you'll quibble with bits and pieces that have since (it's been 150 years, after all) been subject to more trial and scrutiny. As a narrative, it is not without predictive power.