Struggle over the Marxist heritage: The battle for the ivory tower

Karl Marx attacked other socialist and communist schools in “The Communist Manifesto”

The debate over the Marxist heritage is at least as old as Marxism itself. In the nineteenth century, for example, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published a brief work called “The Communist Manifesto.” This remains one of the most influential tracts ever written on economic theory. In that same century, they also published a three-volume work called “Das Kapital.” Some would argue that this is the most talked-about book in the social sciences – or, at least, the work that’s most frequently cited in academic journals of the social sciences. These nineteenth-century works are thus among the most influential books in human history. But Karl Marx debated with others in the budding socialist and communist movements, even attacking many of them in “The Communist Manifesto.” For example, “The Communist Manifesto” contains specific attacks on “reactionary socialism” – including “feudal socialism,” “petty-bourgeois socialism,” and “German, or ‘true,’ socialism” (as it was then called). He also attacks “conservative, or bourgeois, socialism,” although he has more mixed feelings about “critical-utopian socialism and communism” – as he states in the work itself. (Source: Chapter III, Section 3) Thus, the debate over socialism and communism goes back at least as far as the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, it still continues in full force today. Thus, this post will give a brief overview of the debates within the Marxist community, in the years since Marx’s death at age 64. I will have to skip over the original words of Marx himself, since I cover them elsewhere. Therefore, this will include a special focus on both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the developments in Marxist thinking since the twentieth-century Russian Revolution.

Karl Kautsky

A review of Michael Wood’s “The Great British Story: A People’s History”

In America, Ken Burns once said something interesting about American history. That is, he said that the history of the United States is usually told as “a series of presidential administrations punctuated by wars.” You could probably say something similar about the history of our mother country. Schoolchildren in the British Empire were once required to memorize the chronological order of the kings and queens of England. I suppose that there might have been some value in having schoolchildren memorize this stuff. As someone who studies the laws of England, I can tell you that the numerical citation of a Parliamentary law still makes reference to whichever monarch was in power at the time of its passage. Nonetheless, there’s still something to be said for the history of ordinary people as well – and I should note that some of those “ordinary” British people were my own ancestors! My mom has a real talent for family history, and so I’ve seen the names of some of my British ancestors from centuries ago. I’ve even done church work for some of them. (More about that here.) They lived through invasions, plagues, famines, and wars – and passed on their genes well enough to give me the opportunity of writing this post. Thus, this is a personal story for me, since only a few of my British ancestors were “powerful monarchs.” Most of them were ordinary peasants, like the people dramatized in the various episodes of this series.

James Monroe: Famous for the Monroe Doctrine

In 1823, President James Monroe gave one of his annual addresses to Congress on December 2nd. In this address, he announced that “the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers” (Source: Text of the Monroe Doctrine). This was the famous “Monroe Doctrine,” the most iconic aspect of his administration. Some have argued that it had more to do with Monroe’s Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams – who would later succeed Mr. Monroe as president. But, either way, it is clear that Mr. Monroe approved it – which is why the doctrine still (rightly) bears his name. Many have argued that James Monroe was one of our Founding Fathers, and that he was thus “the last Founding Father president.” His presidency is today remembered by history as the “Era of Good Feelings.” (More about that later.) But who was this man? Why was he so important? And where exactly did he come from? These are the questions that this post will attempt to answer.

James Monroe

James Buchanan: One of the worst presidents in American history

When Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, James Buchanan remained in office until March 4th of 1861. (The Twentieth Amendment, which later changed the regular inauguration date to January 20th, had not yet been passed.) Therefore, Southern states started seceding from the Union while James Buchanan was still in the White House. By the time that he left office, a full seven of them had seceded. But James Buchanan did nothing to stop them. The South was furious because Buchanan wouldn’t yield to their demands. And the North was also furious, because Buchanan wouldn’t stop Southern secession. Mr. Buchanan did practically nothing during this critical period. Thus, it would fall to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, to end the Southern attempts at secession. The seeds of the Civil War were being sown (at least in part) during James Buchanan’s administration. This is why Buchanan is typically ranked among the worst presidents in American history. But more about that aspect of the story later. For now, let me try to answer a relatively simple question: Where exactly did James Buchanan come from?

James Buchanan

Is it better to be a generalist or a specialist?

“Jack of all trades,

And master of none,

But oftentimes better

Than a master of one.”

– Paraphrase of an old saying

An anecdote about Leonardo da Vinci, and the origins of the term “Renaissance Man”

During the Italian Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci achieved great successes in an astonishing variety of fields. He was celebrated as a great painter, draftsman, engineer, scientist, theorist, sculptor, and architect. The Italian Renaissance has since become associated with people like Leonardo, whose accomplishments are so broad and varied. Indeed, it is from this era that we get the term “Renaissance Man” – and, of course, the corresponding term “Renaissance Woman.” These two terms describe people like Leonardo, who achieved success in a wide variety of fields. But there have been people like this in many different periods, which is why there are other terms than those referencing the Italian Renaissance. This includes the term “polymath,” a more formal word. This just comes from two Greek words that translate to “many areas of learning.”

Leonardo da Vinci, one of the greatest generalists in history

A review of PBS’s “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”

“Don’t know the manners of good society, eh? Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal – you sockdologizing old man-trap!”

– A comedic line from the play “Our American Cousin” (1858) – spoken by an actor at Ford’s Theater in 1865, the moment before Lincoln was shot there by John Wilkes Booth

Background on John Wilkes Booth, and his unrealized plot to kidnap Abraham Lincoln

I have seen many films about the Civil War. But this film may still rank among the best, despite its relative brevity. It is only 90 minutes long, and it is brilliantly narrated by the actor Chris Cooper. It has many omissions, but it also has some great storytelling. (More about the omissions later.) After a brief introduction, they start by delving into the early life of John Wilkes Booth. They spend some time on his successful stage career, and his early sympathy with the Confederacy. Ironically, John Wilkes Booth had a pro-Northern brother, who later disowned the actions of his notorious sibling. The brother-against-brother phenomenon extended right into the Booths’ own family. But I’m getting ahead of myself here. They spend time on his growing dissatisfaction with Abraham Lincoln, which would later turn into murderous rage. Booth felt some guilt about not having fought for the Confederacy on the battlefield. Thus, he recruited people to help him in a plot to kidnap Abraham Lincoln, and bring him southward. Obviously, this kidnapping plot was never realized – partly because his accomplices pointed out that there were some slight flaws in his plan. But, eight hours before the fateful gunshots, he learned that President Lincoln would be attending Ford’s Theater that night. Thus, he worked at a feverish pace to lay the groundwork for the later events of that evening. Lincoln had few bodyguards around him, in part because no president had ever been assassinated before. That is, there were many other times where Booth could have killed Lincoln with relatively few risks to himself. But he chose Ford’s Theater instead, in part because of his familiarity with the stage. Thus, he got ready to kill President Lincoln. But he also had some accomplices remaining, as well as two other targets.

John Wilkes Booth, the man who murdered Abraham Lincoln

Booth with brothers Edwin and Junius Jr. in Julius Caesar

A review of “Iran: The Forgotten Glory”

“All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he [including Daniel] shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Book of Daniel,” Chapter 6, Verses 7 through 9 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible) – a notable chapter in the Bible to mention the Persians

There are actually three pre-Islamic empires in Persia, and this film is about two of them

There are actually three pre-Islamic empires in Persia. This film is about two of them. The first episode covers the Achaemenid Empire, and the second episode covers the Sasanian Empire. Thus, they (mostly) skip over the Parthian Empire that was between these two great groups. (More about that empire later.) The first episode is roughly 53 minutes long, while the second episode is roughly 44 minutes long. Thus, this film is a little more than an hour and a half in all. It’s a reasonably good primer on the history of Ancient Persia. But its focus seems to be more archeological than historical. Its focus is on showing ancient ruins and reliefs, and what they tell us about the Ancient Persians. And I’m perfectly okay with this film being so low-budget. They make reasonably good use of maps, reconstructions, and other relevant images. They rely on two talking-head scholars, one of them speaking a language that I presume to be Farsi – the Iranian dialect of modern Persian. The other is an American guy from California, whose name suggests some Iranian ancestry of his own – something that proves to be quite helpful in this context. And the film’s credits show many Iranian names involved in the making of this film. But one feels that the viewer doesn’t get a great understanding of Persia’s military or political history, or even their cultural history. They don’t even really show where these great Persian events took place. It’s just an examination of the artifacts from the time (including their art), and what they tell us about the Ancient Persians themselves.

Darius the Great