Rethinking Teaching as Industry

Above: Democratic Model

My Advanced Placement United States History sections recently discussed the transformation of American identity as it related to the concepts of capitalism and democracy; I used my interest in progressive education to showcase how education was used to bring about a transformation in independent school teaching and  the political progressive reforms circa 1900. During the Gilded Age period, the industrial model of education was seen as efficient and pragmatic; however, the traditional machine model as illustrated by a row of desk showcased industry and religion: In the typical classroom model, students’ expectation were to sit and listen to a sage pontificate knowledge; I addressed the religious aspect because the notion of Puritanical beliefs circa 1620 modeled what one found in a church: A minister in front of his followers whose duty was to absorb information rather than engage in a dialogue about the premise of the information.

Why do schools continue to be industrial? If you recall, it is not unusual for a school day to operate much like a factory: Eager students await the day by gathering in lines to enter the hall of their particular factory/school. They make their way from period to period at the beat of a bell; students take on the identity of robots as they appear to have conformed to a systematic process of clock watching. As the bell rings, they escape one shift for the next. They work as endless droids until the whistle blows (or bell rings) denoting lunch; they attend session after session to watch a “manager” play authority over their ability to think freely and/or independently. Some schools operate like prisons and less like learning communities: Windows exist to be boxed up and doors shut to showcase work zones; the manager instructs his/her workers to conform much like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World’s operatives do. A warden polices the hall modeling a lack of distrust for his/her factory workers. Such workers are told to think independently, but they are chained by conformity.

In a classical sense, a great manager by the name of Mr. Keeting (Dead Poets Society) taught his workers to break from the Taylor model of industrial efficiency; however, when they did so, they were met by a factory full of managers who feared true independence of thought; in the end, Oh Captain my Captain was dismissed due to his Socratic formula of teaching . A decade later,  his workers took on the revolution espoused by Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto and brought about an educational system that empowered the young workers. Those young progressives used Marx’s literature to remove the industrial constructs interfering with their education which ultimately gave birth to the civil rights era of the 1960s.

Above: Industrial model

Communist Obama Display

Above: Pictures of communists associated with Obama in a negative way by right wingers. Karl Marx, Frank Marshall Davis, Obama, Bill Ayers, and Che Guevara

Two days ago a few students approached me wondering if I saw the VERY large anti-Obama banner displayed down the road from campus; I really thought they were joking until I and a group of my students took a field trip off campus to take pictures — and to mock the sign; as a liberal, I support the rights of people to protest and showcase their political and ideological leanings; if I did not I would be the biggest hypocrite and agent of anti-intellectualism on campus. Still, I find it interesting that Americans want to associate Obama with communism. Better yet, I find it most interesting that people who protest him and others on the banner have not read nor discussed their work. I have blogged before on the topic of Marxism as an academic method of study here and here. Thus, most people really do not understand this topic nor have they read about it; I realize I sound like a snob, but I do suspect I am right.

As noted before ,Obama is not a communist…. Though I am sure his race and academic training influenced him. It was during the course of the 20th century in which the emergence of Marxism as an academic philosophy in higher education set forth a new wave of examining American culture. It was during the Cold War and its sub conflicts (Vietnam), as well as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s that promulgated many academics to make an ideological shift to the far left. With social and political instability taking place in the United States, Marxist academics were training young students of history, political science, economics, etc., for an intellectual war; this conflict was set to transform the thought process in classes, lecture halls, professional meetings, and published works.

Above: Carson in front of Houston’s firewood business anti-Obama display.

Above: HCHS students who visited the conservative shrine located off of Beltway 8 next to Baseball USA.

Repost of the Marx Question II (Academic Marxism)

This is the second part of a blog piece I wrote earlier entitled The Marx Question Part I. Marxism derived from the philosophical and ideological construction of Karl Marx, a Prussian born Jew. Marx’s beliefs were brought forth when he concluded that the Industrial Revolution was manifested by the bourgeoisie to subordinate the laboring poor for the good of capitalism. Critical theorists have asserted that critical theory Marxism possesses a “moral vision of a world in which the barriers between human beings and constraints upon cooperation had broken down.” Part of Marx’s thinking was that once cooperation broke down, there would be a class struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletarians that would inevitably ignite a revolution; this revolution, according to Marx, would change society by creating a praxis state. Marxism has gone far beyond its 19th century communist premise. Marx’s analysis has been used to explain the problem of class conflict. Marxist academics explore the rise and subjugation of oppressed groups by those with the means and resources to exploit their labor. This premise has been used by historians and other academics to write and teach about modern day class conflict vis-a-vis historical analysis.

During the course of the 20th century, the emergence of Marxism as an academic philosophy in higher education set forth a new wave of examining American culture. It was during the Cold War and its sub conflicts (Vietnam), as well as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s that promulgated many academics to make an ideological shift to the far left. With social and political instability taking place in the United States, Marxist academics were training young students of history, political science, economics, etc., for an intellectual war; this conflict was set to transform the thought process in classes, lecture halls, professional meetings, and published works.

Because academia was dominated by white males who saw their plight as elite, other minority groups and women were excluded from various forms of higher education. With so many groups being silenced by early modern academics, the process of infiltration of Marx’s racialist ideology was slow to take hold in educational settings. Once white leftists academics bought into Marxist’s ideas of absolute political, social, and economic equality, the academy saw a transformation in the writings of history. The historiography became more about the elements of class conflict in society rather than about the story of the conflict. One of the biggest challenges Marxist and New Left academics faced was that of conservative academics, many who believed that the educational curriculum in America should reflect the Protestant tradition of Anglo thought. Of course such a traditionalist curriculum would exclude a number of oppressed voices.

Furthermore, conservative academics argue that academic Marxism and New Left historiography allows for too many minority groups to contribute un-American values to the educational curriculum. Academic conservatives claim that Marxist are only interested in teaching about the plight of oppressed women, blacks, American Indians, and the poor. On the other hand, Marxist academics have claimed that it has only been within the past 15 years that textbooks have reflected the plight of so many oppressed groups. One of my favorite academics, Howard Zinn, wrote his A People’s History of the United States to show another side of the story. In his work, Columbus is no longer a hero; he is a capitalist who stole and persecuted many native people.

I have found that too many Americans like the nice pretty story about American society and culture. We get caught up in the anecdotes that paint George Washington or Andrew Jackson as perfect Americans. Textbooks have taught our parents and their parents to believe the false tales for the good of nationalism. Marxist academics focus their time evaluating the tales so that they can write a history about Washington’s slaves. Marxism is much more complex than a story about Karl Marx who gave rise to a communist state once known as the Soviet Union. Its teachings provides a point of view that allows both students and teachers to engage in a sense of understanding about the social and economic conflict that shape modern day America.

Here is a great blog post I found entitled Marxist for Conservatives.

The Marx Question

Above is a picture I keep on the wall of Marx in the room I teach in.

I get questions from a few it would seem every academic year. I thought my academic reputation as well as my leftist views would have been well established on campus by now, but I guess I am wrong — again. I have joined a group of Obama supporters that have elected to insert Hussein into our middle name as a show of solidarity for him. But it is always the questions I get about Karl Marx that drive me crazy. So, as the normal drill goes, here is my annual “you know nothing” blog on academic Marxism.

People who do not study history tend to always show their ignorance when it comes to Karl Marx and Marxism. I have come across a number of Christians who state “how can you teach Marxism — it subscribes to atheism.” At this point I stop then list the number of books, people, and views taught in schools that are from or about atheists; of course, I am never asked about them….I am only asked about Marx — the person everyone seems to know but don’t. I suspect that people cannot ask about other works and people if they “really” do not know. Better yet, I have found that people only equate Marxism to the former USSR, not realizing that Marx died in 1883 — long before V.I. Lenin transformed Marx’s Utopian concept of equality into an oligarchical dictatorship known as Marxist-Leninism. Moreover, there are many similar errors that distort the meaning of Marx and contemporary communism. The most common view is the encapsulated perspective that Marx and contemporary communism are monolithic. Academic Marxists contend that “contemporary-authoritarian communism lost sight of the human concerns that motivated Marx. Furthermore, academic Marxists believe that a non-authoritarian communism is not only possible in the world, but is manageable with compassion for those who are constantly exploited.” I like to think of the welfare state found in the U.S. and in a number of European states here. The goal is to help those in need via government help. Tax payers have an obligation to end hunger and poverty, regardless of a person’s motives. This is one of the first things I learned in Bible class on Sunday; if we take care of the poor, Christ will take care of us — on earth and in heaven.

Here is the societal problem: According to Marx, “an individual has to work a certain number of hours or days to produce enough to provide a living.” Marx assumed that capitalists would pay workers only enough to keep them alive. His argument matches that of economist David Ricard, (Adam Smith school of thought — Classical Economist) who stated in his “iron law of wages” thesis that people would make just enough to survive since there is always a surplus of workers who will work for less due to the desire to have work. Marx does not support this very conservative economic view, but admits that this is the proletarian plight; unless workers organize to change their social condition, others will always exploit them.

Karl Marx describes as ideological “any set of political illusions produced by the social experience of a class (i.e., a social group defined by its economic role; for example owners or workers).” For Marx a person’s membership in a particular class produced a picture of the world shaped by the experiences of that class. Thus, Marx states that: “it would be almost impossible for an individual class member to form an accurate conception of the world. Marx argued that the socialization process (i.e., the process by which people are shaped by the values of their group) is strongly shaped by one’s place in the class system of that society.” In essence, people of different classes are both directly and indirectly taught to think and behave in ways appropriate for that class. It is this point that historians, political scientists, and other social scientist have addressed the most in writing history from what we call a Marxist’s point of view. Those who “study” analytical history (watching the History Channel does not count nor dose reading Stephen Ambrose) are constantly teaching and writing about class conflict, the premise of classical Marxism.

It is May Day ‘08

I am going to celebrate this day with yet a 5th reading of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. This might be the day American businesses stop exploiting the labor of Mexican Americans — legal or not. To me labor is labor, as long as you are not asking this student [here].

According to Democratic Socialist of America (DSA):

May, 1886: several hundred thousand American workers of the Knights of Labor, the American Federation of Labor, and socialist and anarchist groups all demonstrated for the Eight Hour Day. It was the center of a world-wide movement for shorter working hours. Even the song lyrics of the American movement, “Eight hours for work/eight hours for sleep/eight hours for what we will,” argued for a “natural” pace of life in tune with the seasons, rather than the long hours and miserable conditions imposed by the capitalists.

The catastrophe of the day, a police riot in Chicago against anarchists and a subsequent murderous frame-up of their leaders for bomb-throwing, could not entirely overshadow the excitement of the moment. Working people had spoken. For many anarchists but not only for them, the day also retained the special significance of martyrdom, the occasion to mourn the great heroes of Haymarket who had died from the hangman, unrepentant in their revolutionary fervor.

Marx in the Classroom

The next two weeks of my AP European History syllabus and AP US History syllabus are filled with discussion sets and readings about class conflict. Next week both sections of European History are presenting seminar papers on Jacques Barzun’s book Darwin, Marx, and Wagner. Today in US History we are addressing the plight of the working class and their insecurities. Without strong unions to worry about at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century, an employer could let any worker go for joining a union or speaking against his/her employer. Essentially, Gilded Age corporations worked hard to inculcate a process of class subordination. Furthermore, the government’s marriage to corporations only furthered a model of class conflict and animosity.

As part of US History’s reading syllabus this term, students are required to read The Communist Manifesto (cartoon version link here). Karl Marx’s Four Modes of Production marks a shift in human behavior. Once humans reach stage three, they empower a strong government to regulate their lives and create a sense of social and economic equality. Then, according to Marx, humans naturally progress to stage four: Communism; it is at this point Marx’s model fades into a state of disillusionment. Here he contends that after a proletariat revolution brings about a socialistic/ communistic change, government will wither away. Marxism failed to find a place in the United States and for the most part England due to the late activity of the government. 1900 to 1920 was a “progressive” period when the US government adopted many of the socialist ideas of the Populist Party. Fearing Communism after the Bolshevik Revolution, the US government clamped down on un-American perspectives as early as 1920.

In the 19th century a number of social critics in England, continental Europe, and the US came to fix their attention on the nature of work. They “slowly” realized that factories and machines degraded the status of workers, denying them any joy at life. Government’s reaction to this in the US kept strong elements of Marxism out. Marx called for the proletarians to unite. In England and the US they did by formulating unions.

Terms such as socialist and Marxist are often used synonymously, much to the bitterness of non-Marxist socialist. As a member of Democratic Socialist of America, my major aim is to address matters of racial inequality, as well as political and economic. Marxism in academic circles has been victorious; however, not on the political stage. It will be interesting to see how students feel about terms they have only heard used incorrectly by the misinformed.

The Proletariat

As I prepare to guide my advanced courses through a discussion on race, class, and gender, I often without effort think about the important contribution of Marx and Marxist’s literature. I will admit that at times, even for me, it is difficult to determine who truly belongs to the proletariat or with the bourgeoisie. W.E.B. Du Bois called for a vanguard of black intellectuals to serve as the talented tenth; it was his hope that this academic elite group would educate the masses and transform the racial plight of society. However, when I think I am confused about the importance of looking at historical forces that have shaped modern day conflicts, I am reminded by conservative economist Thomas Sowell that the true bourgeois elite, not the academic elite fighting and teaching for and about social justice, are still exploiting an existing proletariat. Regardless of education and income, I will always be a proletarian. Note what Sowell said about class below:

The almost universal disdain toward the middle class — the bourgeoisie — by those with cosmic visions can be more readily understood in light of the role of such visions as personal gratification and personal license. The middle classes have been classically people of rules, traditions, and self-discipline, to a far greater extent than the underclass below them or the wealthy and aristocratic classes above them. While the underclass pay the price of not having the self-discipline of the bourgeoisie — in many ways, ranging from poverty to imprisonment — the truly wealthy and powerful can often disregard the rules, including laws, without paying the consequences. Those with cosmic visions that seek escape from social constraints regarded as arbitrary, rather than inherent, tend to romanticize the unruliness of the underclass and the sense of being above the rules found among the elite.

Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice [The Free Press, 1999], pp. 139-140

As an intellectual construct, Capital was a masterpiece; but, like some other intellectual masterpieces, it was an elaborately sophisticated structure erected on the foundation of a primitive misconception. …In the realm of ideas in general, the Marxian vision — including his theory of history — has not only dominated various fields at various times, it has survived both the continuing prosperity of capitalism and the economic debacles of socialism. It has become axiomatic among sections of the intelligentsia, impervious to the corrosive effects of evidence or logic. But what did Marx contribute to economics? Contributions depend not only on what was offered but also on what was accepted, and there is no major premise, doctrine, or tool of analysis in economics today that derived from the writings of Karl Marx. There is no need to deny that Marx was in many ways a major historic figure of the nineteenth century, whose long shadow still falls across the world of the twenty-first century. Yet, jarring as the phrase may be, from the standpoint of the economics profession Marx was, as Professor Paul Samuelson called him, “a minor post-Ricardian.”

Thomas Sowell, On Classical Economics [Yale, 2006] p.184-186

Darwinism and American Religion

I have taken a targeted approach toward integrating more intellectual historical literature into both my advanced United States History course as well as my advanced European History course. Two works that students will read a great deal from this upcoming academic year are Social Darwinism in American Thought by Richard Hofstadter and Darwin, Marx, Wagner by Jacques Barzun. Over the years the AP national exam for both courses have asked conceptual questions in which a student must juxtapose Marixism and Darwinism to universal historical forces. While putting together my supplemental reading pack, which contains a number of secondary and primary readings, I came across the article below published in the Journal of International Socialist Review entitled “Why evolutionary biology creates a problem for the Right?” by Phil Gasper. This article is presented from only one point of view. I will balance it with the other side as well. This piece does not reflect Carson’s view. This article is an example of the debates taking place in various communities regarding politics, faith, and science. It would have been nice if the author would have balanced this piece with a debate from the other side. Because he did not, I will do so in the future. For now, we should debate this. Here is the article:

DO YOU believe in evolution? That was one of the questions posed to the ten white men currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination during their first debate, held at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley on May 3, 2007. Three of the candidates—Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado—raised their hands to indicate that they do not.

Did this public display of scientific ignorance illustrate the continuing influence of Christian fundamentalism on American politics, or does the fact that seven of the candidates kept their hands down, show that the religious Right is in decline? Your guess is as good as mine, but a few days later, the New York Times ran an article detailing the sharp debate that has emerged in conservative circles in recent years about what to say about Charles Darwin.

According to the Times report, “For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor.” Driven largely by religious motivations, members of this group advocate old-fashioned Biblical creationism or new-fashioned intelligent design (which posits a designer for at least some components of living things without explicitly using the label “God”).

For the past thirty years or so, the Republican Party has depended on an alliance with the religious Right to win elections. The latter were given the opportunity to promote their reactionary social agenda, while the party bigwigs and their corporate sponsors pushed through economic policies that sharply increased inequality and benefited the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. But the alliance has always included contradictory elements and the squabble over evolution reported by the Times exposes one of them.

Simply put, the religious fundamentalist attack on Darwin’s ideas amounts, in effect, to an attack on the scientific method itself. Rejecting evolutionary biology means rejecting along with it large portions of physics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, and other sciences, which provide evidence for evolution or employ similar methods. But capitalism depends on the accumulation and exploitation of new scientific knowledge. In the short term if religious anti-evolutionists are successful in a particular locality, they can do serious damage to science education, deter researchers from accepting university positions, and create a climate hostile to high-tech industry and investment. In the longer term they can pose a threat to scientific reason itself. Because of this, opposition to creationism and intelligent design has emerged within the conservative movement itself.

Science aside, some conservatives also think that social Darwinism—the idea that the “fittest” rise to the top in human societies—is a useful ideological tool. As the Times notes, “Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.”

The split among conservatives, and the claims by some of them that evolutionary thought offers support to the status quo, is simply the latest recapitulation of a debate that started 150 years ago and should long since have been put to rest. When Darwin first published The Origin of Species in 1859, he correctly expected that there would be fierce opposition from defenders of traditional religious ideas, who saw evolution as an attack on both religion and morality, and thus a threat to the established order. But within a few years, some bourgeois ideologists had embraced evolutionary theory.

The so-called social Darwinists, for example, attempted to defend nineteenth-century laissez-faire capitalism on the grounds that the misery, poverty, and death that it caused would result in the survival of the fittest and thus, ultimately, the general improvement of the human race. Social Darwinism is utter nonsense since, among other things, success in a competitive social and economic system has nothing to do with the notion of biological fitness, and the workings of such a system—as is becoming more and more apparent—may produce an ecological catastrophe that would threaten our species’ very survival.

Social Darwinism is only one way in which conservatives have attempted to use (or, rather, abuse) Darwin’s ideas for their own purposes. The argument that capitalism is in some sense natural because of the way that evolution has shaped human psychology has been another popular gambit for almost as long. Political science professor Larry Arnhart offers a recent version of this argument in his 2005 book Darwinian Conservatism. Among other things, Arnhart claims that evolutionary theory shows that humans instinctively seek power and the accumulation of wealth, and offers support for organizing human societies as male-dominated hierarchies based on the supposedly traditional nuclear family. On this basis he argues not just to keep gays but also women out of the military. He narrowly avoids making the argument that women should also be denied the right to vote.

It is almost embarrassing to have to engage with claims of this kind, which are based not on real evidence, but on speculative hypotheses and a highly selective misreading of the historical record. The speculative hypotheses consist of attempts to show that it may have been advantageous for our early human ancestors to have developed certain psychological characteristics (such as an instinct for power), which may then have become hard-wired into our brains. But speculative hypotheses need evidence to be taken seriously, so here enters the selective misreading of history. Find historical examples of the characteristic in question being exhibited, ignore all counter-examples in which the characteristic is apparently missing, and then argue that the characteristic is genetically programmed into our psyches. It’s certainly easy to find examples of humans ruthlessly seeking power or dominating and humiliating others, for instance, and if you ignore all examples of cooperation and solidarity, you can then conclude that human beings are naturally power-hungry and domineering.

But, in fact, examples of cooperation and solidarity abound, and the best available archaeological and anthropological evidence strongly supports the view that the earliest human societies were not based on competition, inequality, and hierarchy. According to the anthropologist Richard Lee, for example,

Before the rise of the state and the entrenchment of social inequality [about 5,000 years ago], people lived for millennia in small-scale kin-based social groups, in which the core institutions of economic life included collective or common ownership of land and resources, generalized reciprocity in the distribution of food, and relatively egalitarian political relations.

Similar examination of the historical record shows that male domination and the nuclear family are not part of human nature.
The general strategy of drawing political conclusions from an account of human nature is a sound one. But the most striking feature of human behavior is not that the same patterns remain unchanged throughout history, but that it is so variable. This suggests a very different account of human evolution to the one proposed by conservatives like Arnhart. As the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once put it:

Human uniqueness lies in the flexibility of what our brain can do. What is intelligence, if not the ability to face problems in an unprogrammed (or, as we often say, creative) manner? If intelligence sets us apart among organisms, then I think it probable that natural selection acted to maximize the flexibility of our behavior. What would be more adaptive for a learning and thinking animal: genes selected for aggression, spite, and xenophobia; or selection for learning rules that can generate aggression in appropriate circumstances and peacefulness in others?

Gould’s model of human evolution is also consistent with the remarkable findings of recent neuroscientific research, which has revealed the amazing plasticity of the human brain. As another recent New York Times article noted, “the human brain is as malleable as a lump of wet clay not only in infancy, as scientists have long known, but well into hoary old age…. [I]t is apparently able to respond to injury with striking functional reorganization, and can at times actually think itself into a new anatomic configuration.” The idea that human beings will be frustrated unless they live in competitive capitalist societies has no scientific basis—indeed, simple observation reveals that just the opposite is true.

The problem for conservatives is that Darwin’s ideas are genuinely revolutionary. Darwin argued in great detail not only that evolution has taken place (a conclusion that was very rapidly embraced by the vast majority of the scientific establishment, because of the mass of evidence that Darwin provided in its support), but also that evolutionary change was largely the result of the random, ultimately purposeless process of natural selection (an idea that took much longer to be vindicated and accepted). The theory of evolution by natural selection suggests a thoroughly materialist picture of the world that banishes vital forces and preordained purposes from nature, and which implies that mental phenomena emerge when matter is arranged in complex ways. Such ideas undermine not only traditional religious views of divine creation but also more sophisticated versions of theism, which claim that God works through evolution.

Darwin was well aware of the materialist consequences of his views, and was both elated and (as a respectable bourgeois gentleman) made extremely nervous by them. In a notebook written in the 1830s, when he was first developing his ideas, he wrote:

Love of the deity effect of organization [of the brain], oh you materialist!… Why is thought being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity a property of matter? It is our arrogance, our admiration of ourselves.

Later in his notes, he resolved not to state this implication of his views explicitly:

To avoid stating how far I believe in Materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent, which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.

Darwin’s nervousness probably explains why he took so long to publish his ideas, finally doing so only when he became aware that the young Welsh naturalist Alfred Wallace had reached similar conclusions that he was about to make public. But despite his best efforts, they were seen as a direct challenge to the dominant ideology of Victorian England in the mid-nineteenth century. One early reviewer of Darwin’s book, the great geologist Adam Sedgwick, spoke for many: “I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its unflinching materialism.”

It was precisely Darwin’s materialism that explains why his contemporaries Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were so enthusiastic about the new theory. Less than a month after the Origin was published, Engels remarked in a letter to Marx: “Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid.” Marx himself read the Origin the following year and commented to Engels, “Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our own view.” Marx’s point was presumably not that evolution by natural selection automatically implies the truth of his own historical materialist approach to society—there is no contradiction in accepting Darwin and rejecting Marx. But Darwin’s views, by supporting a general materialist perspective and by demonstrating the centrality of historical change in the biological world, certainly enhance the general plausibility of a materialist approach to human society as well.

Debating the “N” Word

I am spending the week at the University of Denver where I am presenting the second of four European history conferences. It is my goal to get some writing done every night while here in Denver. While editing and adding a few additional pages to my paper on Atlantic history, my mind conflated recent news about the death of the “N” word and Peter Gay’s depiction of the period known in the Atlantic world as the Enlightenment. Although this paper deals very little with the nature of race in North America, it would be very difficult to write about European mercantilism and colonization without touching some on the birth of neo-racism and the institution of slavery. After reading a few of my notes on capitalism and race, I thought more about the transformation of the European term niger — which was Latin for black. However, the occupants of British North America quickly realized the profit margin of free black labor as an institution designed though not intended by some scholars to replace indentured servitude.

As I stated in an earlier blog piece: In Karl Marx’s historical modes of production, he contends that neo-racism did not emerge until the rise of Atlantic market labor systems. As the need and desire for more labor increased to help expand capitalists’ notion of mercantilism, exploitation became the premise of enhancing one’s wealth. Before the rise of this paradigm, slavery had yet to be juxtaposed to racism. Ancient slavery was a product of group defeatism. Furthermore, issues of debt and family pride contributed to this institution. By the early middle ages, slavery in Europe and aspects of Asia took on a more feudal identity. I teach that the term “racism” was transformed at the same point that the term “slavery” was transformed via the 16th century Atlantic market. This market gave rise to a newly created North American state that used racial exploitation as a labor base to develop its economic market. I do realize that this attitude was one of region and geography; regardless, it fostered an American identity linked to capitalism, slavery, and racism.

By 1750 a Southern culture emerged that saw the importance of slave labor. With the enlightenment having an impact on the political, cultural, and economic direction of Europe and northern North American colonies, Southerners thanks in part to dislocation and isolation, were not impacted by the dissemination of ideas. When leaders of the United States met to address the Articles of the Confederation, the meeting continued to come to an impass over the issue of slavery. Southerners won round one as the “enlightened” document known as the U.S. Constitution failed to address the negro quetion. Furthermore, white Southerners by 1800 enhanced the notion of white supremacy by mispronouncing the term niger and deriving at what became an instrument of control: the use of nigger as a noun.

Enlightened 19th century Christians would further the justification of racism by teaching God’s curse on Adam and Eve’s son Cain, also known as the mark of Cain. Academics have affirmed this was a curse on Cain’s labor and harvest, while Christians taught this curse as the establishment of an inferior race — the nigger race. 18th century academics used reason to categorize and discuss race. Immanuel Kant in his “On the Different Races of Man (1775), aligned peoples’ characters with their physical appearance. Now, behavior and appearance ran together; one could assess peoples’ potential solely by looking at them. For the most part, however, Kant, like others at this time, used the term race loosely, without any real concern for scientific precision or exactness. Such systems provided a vocabulary for distinguishing between people based on (supposedly) natural differences that determined people’s abilities and justified differing applications of rights and liberties. Yet, the rise of natural sciences and the modern nation-state gave racism its modern, more violent and dangerous character.” The birth of the United States clearly proved Kant’s premise as absolute and correct.

Black intellectuals such as Michael Dyson looks at the history of race and the term nigger as a process of arguing against killing the “N” word. He contends that white folks have used it as an instrument of fear and inferiority for years while blacks have taken the term and transformed it into a cultural construction that should be used only by blacks. I think back to the rise of a young comedian named Richard Pryor, who inculcated the term nigger into his comedy act. Dyson argues that killing the term nigger only empowers white supremacy. I do not agree with him on this, but from a historical perspective, the term has always been used by whites to look down on blacks as seen here with these examples:

Niggerish: Acting in a lazy and irresponsible manner. Niggerlipping: wetting the end of a cigarette while smoking it.
Niggerlover: Derogatory term aimed at whites lacking in the necessary loathing of blacks.
Nigger luck: Exceptionally good luck, emphasis on undeserved.
Nigger-flicker: A small knife or razor with one side heavily taped to preserve the user’s fingers.
Nigger heaven: Designated places, usually the balcony, where blacks were forced to sit, for example, in an integrated movie theater or church.
Nigger knocker: Axe handle or weapon made from an axe handle.
Nigger rich: Deeply in debt but flamboyant.
Nigger shooter: A slingshot.
Nigger steak: A slice of liver or a cheap piece of meat.
Nigger stick: Police officer’s baton.
Nigger tip: Leaving a small tip or no tip in a restaurant. Nigger in the woodpile: A concealed motive or unknown factor affecting a situation in an adverse way.
Nigger work: Demeaning, menial tasks.

Dyson and other black folks who defend the use of the “N” word argue that black folks like Pryor and rappers like 50 cent are only defeating the power of white supremacy when they profit from its usage. A Marxist would argue that black folks are being exploited by the very white supremist that own the record albums. Oh well, some food for thought.

Academic Marxism Part II

This is the second part of a blog piece I wrote earlier entitled Academic Marxism I. Marxism derived from the philosophical and ideological construction of Karl Marx, a Prussian born Jew. Marx’s beliefs were brought forth when he concluded that the Industrial Revolution was manifested by the bourgeoisie to subordinate the laboring poor for the good of capitalism. Critical theorists have asserted that critical theory Marxism possesses a “moral vision of a world in which the barriers between human beings and constraints upon cooperation had broken down.” Part of Marx’s thinking was that once cooperation broke down, there would be a class struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletarians that would inevitably ignite a revolution; this revolution, according to Marx, would change society by creating a praxis state. Marxism has gone far beyond its 19th century communist premise. Marx’s analysis has been used to explain the problem of class conflict. Marxists academics explore the rise and subjugation of oppressed groups by those with the means and resources to exploit their labor. This premise has been used by historians and other academics to write and teach about modern day class conflict vis-a-vis historical analysis.

During the course of the 20th century, the emergence of Marxism as an academic philosophy in higher education set forth a new wave of examining American culture. It was during the Cold War and its sub conflicts (Vietnam), as well as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s that promulgated many academics to make an ideological shift to the far left. With social and political instability taking place in the United States, Marxists academics were training young students of history, political science, economics, etc., for an intellectual war; this conflict was set to transform the thought process in classes, lecture halls, professional meetings, and published works.

Because academia was dominated by white males who saw their plight as elite, other minority groups and women were excluded from various forms of higher education. With so many groups being silenced by early modern academics, the process of infiltration of Marx’s racialist ideology was slow to take hold in educational settings. Once white leftists academics bought into Marxist’s ideas of absolute political, social, and economic equality, the academy saw a transformation in the writings of history. The historiography became more about the elements of class conflict in society rather than about the story of the conflict. One of the biggest challenges Marxists and New Left academics faced was that of conservative academics,  many who believed that the educational curriculum in America should reflect the Protestant tradition of Anglo thought. Of course such a traditionalist curriculum would exclude a number of oppressed voices.

Furthermore, conservative academics argue that academic Marxism and New Left historiography allows for too many minority groups to contribute un-American values to the educational curriculum. Academic conservatives claim that Marxists are only interested in teaching about the plight of oppressed women, blacks, American Indians, and the poor. On the other hand, Marxists academics have claimed that it has only been within the past 15 years that textbooks have reflected the plight of so many oppressed groups. One of my favorite academics, Howard Zinn, wrote his A People’s History of the United States to show another side of the story. In his work, Columbus is no longer a hero; he is a capitalist who stole and persecuted many native people.

I have found that too many Americans like the nice pretty story about American society and culture. We get caught up in the anecdotes that paint George Washington or Andrew Jackson as perfect Americans. Textbooks have taught our parents and their parents to believe the false tales for the good of nationalism. Marxists academics focus their time evaluating the tales so that they can write a history about Washington’s slaves. Marxism is much more complex than a story about Karl Marx who gave rise to a communist state once known as the Soviet Union. Marxist’s teachings provides a point of view that allows both students and teachers to engage in a sense of understanding about the social and economic conflict that shape modern day America.

Academic Marxism Part I

People who do not study history tend to always show their ignorance when it comes to Karl Marx and Marxism. I have come across a number of Christians who state “how can you teach Marxism — it subscribes to atheism.” At this point I stop then list the number of books, people, and views taught in schools that are from or about atheists; of course, I am never asked about them….I am only asked about Marx — the person everyone seems to know but don’t. I suspect that people cannot ask about other works and people if they “really” do not know. Better yet, I have found that people only equate Marxism to the former USSR, not realizing that Marx died in 1883 — long before V.I. Lenin transformed Marx’s Utopian concept of equality into an oligarchical dictatorship known as Marxist-Leninism. Moreover, there are many similar errors that distort the meaning of Marx and contemporary communism. The most common view is the encapsulated perspective that Marx and contemporary communism are monolithic. Academic Marxists contend that “contemporary-authoritarian communism lost sight of the human concerns that motivated Marx. Furthermore, academic Marxists believe that a non-authoritarian communism is not only possible in the world, but is managable with compassion for those who are constantly exploited.” I like to think of the welfare state found in the U.S. and in a number of European states here. The goal is to help those in need via government help. Tax payers have an obligation to end hunger and poverty, regardless of a person’s motives. This is one of the first things I learned in Bible class on Sunday; if we take care of the poor, Christ will take care of us — on earth and in heaven.

Here is the societal problem: According to Marx, “an individual has to work a certain number of hours or days to produce enough to provide a living.” Marx assumed that capitalists would pay workers only enough to keep them alive. His argument matches that of economist David Ricard, (Adam Smith school of thought — Classical Economist) who stated in his “iron law of wages” thesis that people would make just enough to survive since there is always a surplus of workers who will work for less due to the desire to have work. Marx does not support this very conservative economic view, but admits that this is the proletarian plight; unless workers organize to change their social condition, others will always exploit them.

Karl Marx describes as ideological “any set of political illusions produced by the social experience of a class (i.e., a social group defined by its economic role; for example owners or workers).” For Marx a person’s membership in a particular class produced a picture of the world shaped by the experiences of that class. Thus, Marx states that: “it would be almost impossible for an individual class member to form an accurate conception of the world. Marx argued that the socialization process (i.e., the process by which people are shaped by the values of their group) is strongly shaped by one’s place in the class system of that society.” In essence, people of different classes are both directly and indirectly taught to think and behave in ways appropriate for that class. It is this point that historians, political scientists, and other social scientist have addressed the most in writing history from what we call a Marxist’s point of view. Those who “study” analytical history (watching the History Channel does not count nor dose reading Stephen Ambrose) are constantly teaching and writing about class conflict, the premise of classical Marxism.

Here are a few of my favorite Academic Marxists who have published profound works on the importance of reviewing class conflict in historical and literary works:

• Anatole Anton
• Howard Zinn
• Eric Foner
• Frederic Jameson
• Joe Feagin
• Cornal West
• Gary Nash
• Eric Hobsbawm

Racism and Democracy

I am currently preparing a set of notes to address the Nadir period of American history (1890-1940) In doing so, one of the topics that must be addressed is that of race and capitalism. Frederick states that ”the term is often used in a loose and unreflective way to describe the hostile or negative feelings of one racial group or people toward another.” Moreover, the actions that come as a result of various attitudes helps to define this complex term. I say this because in society we tend to call a person a racist just because he or she does not support another person’s ideological construct. If you know me, I am sure that you are thinking this is a very conservative and abstract interpretation; however, I have taught the rise of racism through various different epochs; we tend to juxtapose the term racism with that of slavery too often.

In Karl Marx’s historical modes of production, he contends that neo-racism did not emerge until the rise of Atlantic market labor systems (ok, he did not use the term Atlantic market). As the need and desire for more labor increased to help expand the capitalist’s notion of mercantilism, exploitation became the premise of enhancing one’s wealth. Before the rise of this paradigm, slavery had yet to be juxtaposed to racism. Ancient slavery was a product of group defeatism. Furthermore, issues of debt and family pride contributed to this institution. By the early middle ages, slavery in Europe and aspects of Asia took on a more feudal identity. I teach that the term “racism” was transformed at the same point that the term “slavery” was transformed via the 16th century Atlantic market. The Atlantic market gave rise to a newly created North American state that used racial exploitation as a labor base to develop its economic market. I do realize that this attitude was one of region and geography; regardless, it fostered an American identity linked to capitalism, slavery, and racism. Funny, but the very nature of slavery was anti-climatic to the term free-market capitalism.

The problem that unfolded, however, was the marriage of democracy, racism, and slavery. These three components can be viewed as a product of capitalism. Many of my favorite black intellectuals were Marxists. Better yet, many were card carrying members of the Communist Party. Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, W.E.B. DuBois, and Zora Neale Hurston wrote about the failure of American democracy. According to some, “they saw a better world in the red regime of Cold War Eastern Europe. Because of the failure of American democracy, the Communists had some natural advantages. Marxist ideology was insistently “nonracislist; the various non-European nationalities in the former Soviet Union were, on paper at lest, equal under the law; and blacks from the west that visited Russia could be entertained in a manner that seemed to demonstrate a total absence of color prejudice.” Today, racism is more covert; it is found in the urban centers of America where the impact of ghettoization due to Jim Crowism have institutionalized a cycle of vice, poverty, and poor education. Much of this institution, just like that of the Atlantic market’s formation of an American democracy, has been derived from exploitation. Thanks to the growth of the federal government, blacks have been able to use devices such as affirmative action to elevate themselves to middle class status.

Although racism will always exist, as seen by the political and economic exploitation of Mexican Americans and the globalization process of underdeveloped states, some rural and urban white Americans too are feeling the impact of class consciousness. Education, which is the greatest equalizer, has failed many Americans, regardless of race. So, is the term “racism” entering into a new epoch, I doubt it; however, it is going through a transformation.

Carson’s Teachings

If you know much about the teachings of Karl Marx, you will enjoy this Karl Marx cartoon. Students, terms such as proletarian, bourgeoisie, epoch, and class conflict will sound familiar. Check this out here.

A Case for the Importance of Karl Marx’s Ideas

While I complete my reading of Paul D’Amato’s recent book, The Meaning of Marxism, (which is one of two that I am reading simultaneously; the other one was given to me by Jennifer Drew, a sophomore at HCHS – I will be writing about this later) I am reminded of the amount of work I, but more than anything, my students will have to correct. I do believe that we have students who are concerned with eliminating vice, poverty, and social inequalities in society, although they attend a school where tuition is around $ 15,000 a year (this is not a contradiction). You can read an excerpt from D’Amato’s book in the most recent issue of (ISR) International Socialist Review. The ISR is for the proletarians.

Here are a few points D’Amato points out in his work:

“The obscenity of capitalism today is expressed in a few simple facts:
The assets of the world’s top three billionaires are greater than those of the poorest 600 million people on the planet.

Globally, there are seventy thousand people who possess more than $30 million in financial assets-enough to fill a large sports stadium. Half of the world’s 587 billionaires (enough to fill a large disco) are Americans, whose wealth increased collectively by $500 billion in 2003 alone. They possess the same amount of wealth as the combined gross domestic product of the world’s poorest 170 countries combined.

More than a third of the world’s people-2.8 billion-live on less than two dollars a day.

1.2 billion people live on less than one dollar a day.

The statistics for the United States reveal a society that is certainly rich-but only for a minority:

The average compensation in 2004 for the CEOs of the top 367 U.S. companies was $11.8 million, up from $8.1 million in 2003. On average, CEOs in 2004 made 431 times what a production worker made, up from a 107:1 ratio in 1990 and a 42:1 ratio in 1982. CEO pay has increased by 300 percent over the last fifteen years, whereas wages have increased in the same period by only 5 percent (and minimum wage workers have seen their pay fall 6 percent). If wages had kept up with the percentage increase in CEO pay, in 2004 the average pay for production workers would have been $110,136, instead of $27,460.

The top 20 percent of American households control 83 percent of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 80 percent of Americans control only about 17 percent of the nation’s wealth.

A total of 34.6 million Americans in 2002-12.1 percent of the population-lived below the official poverty line (which is set absurdly low), and 8.5 million of them had jobs. Overall, Black poverty is double that of whites.”

Mexican Karl Marx vs. Deutsche Karl Marx

My colleague Suzan Phenicie asked me to address a group of students on the nature of Marxism as part of an enrichment assignment for her students. While preparing my lecture notes, I came across this piece on the internet. If you do not get the humor, try attending one of my lectures on Marx.

Mexican Marx vs. Deutsche Marx

Around 1864, Marx wrote his infamous “Eleven Theses on Feuerbach,” which paved the way for much of the explicit critiques of western political economies that followed. Perhaps the most famous thesis of the bunch was #11.

“Philosophers have thus far only interpreted the world. The purpose, however, is to taste it.”

His basic contention: thanks to a bourgeois hegemony through most of the industrial nations, ethnic idiosyncrasies in diet and culinary preference had been suppressed, to be replaced by an alienation, eradicating the peasant, artisan cooks and replacing them with mass-produced flavorings and Gestapo-like infrastructure. This was in fact the main focus of analysis in his longer work, the Grundrisse (which in German means *the
Cookbook*).

Thus for Marx, a specifically ethnic and particularized flavoring is necessary for redeeming both cook and the masses from this cycle of alienation. In an exhausting analysis, he identifies the stages of spice accrual in political economies and along trade routes, culminating in the collapse of the Hansiatic league in the early nineteenth century. The resulting suppression of Paprika across the continent pushed trade routes to favor more Mediterranean flavorings, which remained stable despite the economic chaos that ensued. It was in fact the new upsurge in red-pepper and cilantro which pretty much drew the political borders for Europe. It was the taste of revolution, the juice of blood red tomatoes and the sting of fire on the tongue, that ignited revolutionary movements across the globe.

It remained for evangelists of Marx, such as Nikolai Lenin, to develop and refine the salsa recipes which enable us, even now, to hum such stirring anthems as “The Red-Pepper Flag” and “The East is Red-Peppered”.

I hope that helps explain things a bit.