Comments on: Left of Karl Marx (Part I)

By: Daisy

Daisy — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:40:22 +0000

Kent–Ok, but you miss mine, which isn’t surprising as I’m not being very clear. I’m saying lots of writers are ideologically aligned in problematic ways, and I’m wondering why people tend not to talk about it–tend to sweep it off the table, as you say–unless it’s a matter of what happened far away. I do think lefties tend to get twitted for their politics more than most, Ezra Pound notwithstanding. Best, Daisy

By: Kent Johnson

Kent Johnson — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:39:42 +0000

That’s funny: I ended that last comment by saying “under Marx’s last.”
I meant under Mark’s last!
I’m sure Mark would be the first to agree he is no Karl Marx!
:~)
Kent

By: Kent Johnson

Kent Johnson — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:05:16 +0000

Daisy,
I’m afraid you completely miss my point, though I honestly don’t know how I could make it any clearer…
I am NOT in any way saying that Claudia Jones’s poetry (though apparently no one here except Mark has seen it yet) is unworthy of consideration because of her political affiliations! I love the work of lots of poets who were Stalinists, Right-wingers, Poet-Warriors, Anti-Semites, NRA Members, Sexual Deviants, what have you…
I am merely saying that in a discussion that centers on working class poetry in the context of Left history and tradition, one cannot sweep certain major issues off the table. If one does that, it desiccates the discussion, robs it of an important part of its historical texture, suggests a sense of naivete at best, and risks, at worst, making it appear that one is ho-hum casual about the obscene crime that was Stalinism–a crime committed, to be sure, *against* the Left and its culture, as well!
Anyway, I’m honestly beginning to feel a bit confused about the reaction (or no reaction) to the simple point I’m making. Though glad to see that JDJ also brings it up in his excellent long comment under Marx’s last…
Kent

By: Daisy

Daisy — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:52:22 +0000

Kent–
Should an American poet accept a laureateship under the Bush Administration? I think probably not, but does it change how I read their poems? Probably not, also. Should we fail to mention that a poet accepted a laureateship under Bush when we talk about that poet? And yet it is almost never mentioned. What about American poets who never said a word about the firebombing of Tokyo? What about Emily Dickinson who failed to notice the existence of slavery?
Daisy

By: Steve Tills

Steve Tills — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:15:43 +0000

“It seems like a simple, reasonable point.”
It IS, and well-taken, too.
Steve

By: Kent Johnson

Kent Johnson — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:37:23 +0000

Daisy and Michael,
I don’t disagree with much of what you say here, though see my key point below.
And note that I readily granted that Claudia Jones was a brave person who did some admirable things.
But as a leading national official of the CPUSA (and then later member of the British CP), she was also more than just an “innocent, idealistic” member of the Party. In the 1940s, you didn’t get to be head honcho of the YCL or a member of the CP National Committee by being naive about what was happening in the USSR and the international left! You had to be hardened and you had to know how to rationalize… And as a leader of the Party she was well aware of–and spoke out loudly and clearly in defense of–Stalin’s policies, from the Stalin/Hitler Pact to the murderous purges of so-called “internal agents of Imperialism.”
In other words, poet or not, the intellectual equal of CLR James or not (ahem), she was, yes, a Stalinist.
I was, Michael and Daisy, a full-time, dues-paying member of a Marxist-Leninist organization for more than a decade, and am not ignorant of the history of the left; so please, while I understand your points, you will have to make less “sentimental” arguments than this.
In short, just as I (or anyone, I hope!) would expect enthused posts here on, say, Heidegger or Celine to proffer *some kind* of caveat regarding their ideological complicities with anti-Semitism and fascism, I would also expect enthused posts on a Stalinist politician to proffer *some kind* of caveat regarding her ideological complicities with a regime whose crimes are legion.
It seems like a simple, reasonable point.
Kent

By: Michael Robbins

Michael Robbins — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:46:53 +0000

It was possible to be a member of the American Communist Party without being a Stalinist; several people were, &, as Daisy points out, it was a tremendously important organizational force for social justice — in the Jim Crow South, among other places. & it’s important to keep in mind that, as Noam Chomsky says, “many deeply committed Stalinists . . . didn’t really know or . . . care very much what was happening in Russia. They cared about the suffering of oppressed people in the United States & they were going to help them. Some of those people committed themselves to crazy & unbelievable positions with regard to the Soviet Union. But the sphere of their concern was primarily at home, & much of what they did was quite respectable, very admirable in fact, within the sphere of their primary concern. In defense of civil rights for blacks, for example, or in union organizing. We probably wouldn’t have the CIO without the courageous efforts of these organizers.” (This excerpt, not incidentally, occurs within the context of Chomsky’s condemnation of both Stalinism & Trotskyism.)

By: Daisy

Daisy — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:02:36 +0000

You know, it’s okay–it’s good–to remember that the American CP was Stalinist and that Stalin was (among other things) a murderous dictator. But it’s also good to remember that many people who joined the American Communist Party did so because of what it was doing or trying to do here at home, in civil rights, in unionizing, in opposing American imperialism. It always has seemed curious to me that people who certainly seem to be a force for good in their practical actions–activist-poets like Claudia Jones–get criticized for their ideological associations, while people who *do* nothing at all, or worse, get a free pass.
Daisy

By: Kent Johnson

Kent Johnson — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:41:53 +0000

Jasper said:
>Well, yes, but by the time James was himself imprisoned on Ellis Island and writing his great book on Melville, he’d already begun to develop a substantial critique of Trotskyism. . .
Well, yes, but he certainly didn’t become a Stalinist!
Kent

By: Jasper

Jasper — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:50:43 +0000

Kent said:
>CLR James, a Trotskyist!
Well, yes, but by the time James was himself imprisoned on Ellis Island and writing his great book on Melville, he’d already begun to develop a substantial critique of Trotskyism. . .