Date   

Re: Trump says he's considering Snowden pardon

Chris Slee
 

Max Power claims that Trump "didn't start any wars".  He is imposing economic blockades against a number of countries, including Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and North Korea.   A blockade is an act of economic warfare.  It kills people, not only by depriving the blockaded country of medical supplies, but by damaging the economy and increasing poverty.  It has been estimated that tens of thousands of people have died in Venezuela due to the blockade.

Trump met with the North Korean leader but still maintains an economic blockade against North Korea.

Chris Slee


From: marxmail@groups.io <marxmail@groups.io> on behalf of Max Power <maxpower@...>
Sent: Monday, 17 August 2020 5:01 AM
To: marxmail@groups.io <marxmail@groups.io>
Subject: [marxmail] Trump says he's considering Snowden pardon
 

He may be a narcissist, but he didn't start any wars, he was the first president to meet with North Korea, and now this.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512209-trump-says-hes-considering-snowden-pardon


Re: Cosmonaut

Louis Proyect
 

On 8/16/20 4:57 PM, fkalosar101@... wrote:
Does anyone have background info on this site? I caught the glimmering of an idea in their piece on "revolutionary sobriety," but am wary and not all that amused by the post-Soviet kitsch.

My impression is that they are young, independent Marxist intellectuals who have little interest in activism. However, the articles are quite well-researched and interesting as my frequent posting of links to their articles would suggest.


Cosmonaut

fkalosar101@...
 

Does anyone have background info on this site? I caught the glimmering of an idea in their piece on "revolutionary sobriety," but am wary and not all that amused by the post-Soviet kitsch.


Re: Transitional Programme | A Transition to Nowhere | Prometheus

Louis Proyect
 

On 8/16/20 3:49 PM, Joseph Green wrote:
If the slaughter of the Irish people doesn't seem to you to be relevant,  then nothing I say can possibly make a difference. But for the record, it doesn't help any progessive or revolutionary movement to simply say "rah, rah", and ignore the problems. And it strikes me as an obscenity to look at the Ethiopian empire, which was involved in repressing various subject nationalities, and dream of how wonderful it would be if Selassie turned out to be like Cromwell, given that Cromwell slaughtered an oppressed nationality. It's like wishing many happy returns of the day at a funeral. And unfortunately there were indeed many returns of the day this time, but not very happy ones, as the Empire ended up in a decades-long war against Eritrea.
I don't think you have theorized the bourgeois revolution. You might want to read Neil Davidson's book but this will at least give you an idea of what I think is the way to understand it dialectically rather than morally.

https://johnriddell.com/2013/05/15/neil-davidson-on-rethinking-bourgeois-revolution/


Moderator's note

Louis Proyect
 

As a rule of thumb, we ask that subscribers refrain from posting more than 5 times a day. Except for my news items, I try to stick to that myself.


Re: Transitional Programme | A Transition to Nowhere | Prometheus

Joseph Green
 

On 14 Aug 2020 at 4:42, John Reimann wrote:

There is no such thing as "The Transitional Program by Leon
Trotsky". He never wrote and never
would have written anything by that name.
You have written a lot of very interesting articles, John. They are based on
careful observation of what's happening. But when it comes to Trotskyist dogma,
it changes. You go into spin control mode. It's ludicrous to try to free Trotskyism
from the fiasco of the transitional program by claiming that it never existed, and is
really just a method. It's word-chopping.

You deny that Trotsky ever wrote anything with the title "The Transitional
Program". Yes, that wasn't the original title of the article, but it was immediately
added by Trotsky's closest comrades and collaborators. More importantly, the
article clearly elaborates Trotsky's idea of the transitional program.

I think you want to save Trotsky's concept of the transitional program from the
multitide of wrong assessments in "The Transitional Program". So you only
accept the "transitional method", and quietly jettison the gross blunders. But
Trotsky's transitional method is the replacement of the minimum and maximum
programs with the transitional program. That replacement is in itself wrong. A
transitional program only makes sense in a transitional situation, where revolution
is imminent. If it isn't, then eliminating the distinction between the minimum and
maximum program is a way of deluding oneself about how revolutionary certain
reforms are, in and of themselves.

Moreover, anyone who reads "The Transitional Program: The Death Agony of
Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International" will see that the transitional
program--or method if you prefer--is completely based on socialism being
imminent everywhere, and the world being in what Trotsky called a "transitional
epoch". Trotsky meant "death agony" very seriously. This was emphatically
repeated in Trotsky's prediction two years later that World War II would bring
either world socialism or world totalitarianism. (1) This prediction was very, very
wrong. But one can't really separate the transitional method from it. This
prediction strongly affects tactics.

This was seen in the Arab Spring. Most Trotskyist groups had a lot of trouble with
their theorizing about it. The idea of the permanent revolution reinforced the idea
of imminent socialism. Yet it was clear right from the the start that the uprisings of
the Arab Spring, even if completely successful, wouldn't bring socialism or
workers' regimes. Some Trotskyst groups would denounce various uprisings for
that reason; others supported uprisings if they imagined that they were socialist;
and then some dropped their support as soon as they realized that the uprisings
weren't going to transition on to socialism. (2)

Today we are in a period of crises. Should we therefore expect that now socialist
revolution is imminent? This would give rise to the idea that the break-up of
market fundamentalism will lead directly to a transitional situation and socialism,
and that any major uprising will either go to socialism or collapse. It's going to
give rise to many mistakes on the part of the Trotskyist movement, just as it did
with the Arab Spring.

(1) See the section "Either Socialism or Slavery" of the "Manifesto of the Fourth
International on the Imperialist War and the Proletarian World Revolution", May
1940 in Writings of Leon Trotsky (1939-1940), Pathfinder Press, 219-220.

(2)See, for exampl,e "Against Left-wing Doubts About the Democratic
Movement", http://www.communistvoice.org/46cLeftWingDoubts.htm", or other
articles linked at http://www.communistvoice.org/00ArabSpring.html.





--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Re: Transitional Programme | A Transition to Nowhere | Prometheus

Joseph Green
 

On 14 Aug 2020 at 7:51, Louis Proyect wrote:

>
> On 8/14/20 3:43 AM, Joseph Green wrote:
>    
>     He ranked Selassie alongside Cromwell or Robespierre, which for
> Trotsky -- who    ignores certain things about these "dictators", such as
> Cromwell's butchering of  the Irish people  -- was very high praise.
> So what?

If the slaughter of the Irish people doesn't seem to you to be relevant,  then nothing I say can possibly make a difference. But for the record, it doesn't help any progessive or revolutionary movement to simply say "rah, rah", and ignore the problems. And it strikes me as an obscenity to look at the Ethiopian empire, which was involved in repressing various subject nationalities, and dream of how wonderful it would be if Selassie turned out to be like Cromwell, given that Cromwell slaughtered an oppressed nationality. It's like wishing many happy returns of the day at a funeral. And unfortunately there were indeed many returns of the day this time, but not very happy ones, as the Empire ended up in a decades-long war against Eritrea.

> Trotsky wrote an article titled "Learn to Think" that I reference in my
> CounterPunch article today about the U. of Utah fiasco. Joseph might
> find Trotsky's article useful.

Louis, you cite the article, "Learn to think", even though it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.  That's pathetic. At most, citing this article is a dog-whistle way to promote the slander that criticizing Trotsky's lavish praise of Haile Selassie meant opposing support for the Ethiopian struggle against Italian fascist invasion.

Of course in some other situations the Trotskyists say that they are capable of supporting the fight of a country against imperialist attack without glorifying the leadership. Indeed they suppose that they can provide "unconditional military support" to regimes, without providing any "political support". With regard to the Soviet Union, they put forward the Clemenceau Declaration. They were also able to separate support for the Soviet Union against Hitlerite invasion from support for the Stalinist leadership. And then they claim to find it incomprehensible that there was a difference between solid support for Ethiopia against Italian fascist aggression, and promoting his imperial majesty Haile Selassie, as a great anti-imperialist hero and revolutionary, whose victory would strike a blow at imperialism as a whole.

Now, it was essential to support Ethiopia, but it was not necessary to praise Haile Selassie to the skies. In this case, Trotsky was at least on the right side of the Italo-Ethiopian war. But his extravagant praise for Haile Selassie set a model that has corrupted the Trotskyist movement ever since. It has been used to justify support for Saddam Hussein or even the Taliban, where various Trotskyist groups haven't been able to recognize when a war was reactionary on both sides.

Now, the prerequisite for useful thought is to study the issue under discussion.Yet you apparently don't know anything about what happened in the Italo-Ethiopian war, what were the problems that divided the people in the face of Italian fascist invasion, who carried out the fighting in Ethiopia after Selassie fled, what happened to them after the war, etc.  You haven't devoted one second of thought to  whether Selassie's defeat of the reform movement  harmed the anti-imperialist struggle, and also helped pave the way for decades of warfare afterward. No, you don't need this knowledge. Your attitude is "so what?" All you have to know is that Trotsky is being criticized, and nothing else matters. And I observe the same thing with the RCIT and various commentators on this list.

 I stand for a diifferent attitude to socialist theory. If one is going to deal with the issue of the anti-imperialist and socialist stand with regard to an African country, one should know something about that country.Revolutionary theory must be tested over and over again against experience. Trotsky replaced this with giving hypothetical examples, one after another. One can never test one of his hypothetical examples, because it is whatever Trotsky says it is; he can always suppose any outcome he pleases. With regard to Ethiopia, one can test what Trotsky said.  But the Trotskyist movement won't do it, and closes its eyes to that experience. It makes it into a hypothetical example. That's  learning how not to think.

African history matters!

The experience of the fight against Italian fascist invasion and occupation matters!

What actually happened to the Amhara, Tigrayan, Oromo, Eritrean, and other peoples in or around Ethiopia matters!

  

Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: email delivery tip for new marxmail subscribers

Max Power <maxpower@...>
 

If I edit a post I wrote, does a new message go out to everyone? Sometimes I notice I missed an apostrophe (for example) and I fix it, but I won't do that if a new email gets sent.


Re: Trump says he's considering Snowden pardon

Max Power <maxpower@...>
 

Of course, it waits to be seen! 


The Trouble with Disparity

Max Power <maxpower@...>
 
Edited

"Because racism is not the principal source of inequality today," argue Reed and Benn Michaels, "anti-racism functions more as a misdirection that justifies inequality than a strategy for eliminating it."
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/15/trouble-disparity


Re: Transitional Programme | A Transition to Nowhere | Prometheus

Louis Proyect
 

On 8/16/20 3:11 PM, Carl Peters wrote:

I think Joseph Green has replied effectively to comments and questions about his articles on Trotsky and Ethiopia. I would add two things: (1) Louis Proyect’s “So what?” regarding Selassie’s expansionism and oppression of national minorities in Ethiopia is a red flag to activists of today who are demanding a review of the so-called heroes of history. Proyect’s attitude, “so what” if Cromwell massacred the Irish, is not acceptable. LP compares it to Mustafa Kemal’s “suppression” of Armenians and Kurds, which he accepts because according to him Kemal was “historically progressive.” There was nothing progressive about the Armenian Holocaust. Nor was there anything progressive about the slaughter of native peoples in America, which LP tosses off with a “so what.” Activists of today are demanding a review of bourgeois heroes like Lincoln and Washington, smashing statues and demanding a recasting of others, to better reflect these heroes’ actual position in history. It’s an insult to them to say “so what?” (2) I’m disappointed that commentators on JG’s articles don’t talk about their relevance to recent political events and organizations of today. JG’s articles discuss the relevance of Trotsky’s views to the views of Trotskyist organizations today like WWP of the U.S. and SWP of Britain. Working class activists trying to build opposition to the Iraq war in 2003-04 were faced with an embarrassing problem, that some of the largest left groups organizing opposition to Bush’s war actually supported Saddam Hussein. This helped divide and cripple the movement. The same issue has come up again and again in recent years, as prominent left groups have openly supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic in Iran, Bashir Assad in Syria, etc. This is not just an accident or a mistake but a continuous line crippling the left opposition to imperialism in the U.S., Britain and elsewhere. JG’s articles try to tie this line to a common ancestry, Trotsky on Ethiopia. Was this wrong? Commentators, if they’re going to critique JG’s articles, should comment on their contemporary political relevance and explain their own stand regarding “national heroes” like Saddam Hussein, Bashir Assad, the Taliban and the Khomenei-ites of Iran.

 

I don't think you have theorized the bourgeois revolution. You might want to read Neil Davidson's book but this will at least give you an idea of what I think is the way to understand it dialectically rather than morally.

https://johnriddell.com/2013/05/15/neil-davidson-on-rethinking-bourgeois-revolution/



Re: Trump says he's considering Snowden pardon

Michael Wiest <mwiest@...>
 

Do you live in the Bay Area?  If so I have a bridge for sale.  ( Is this too snarky for my very 1st post?)

On Aug 16, 2020, at 12:01 PM, Max Power <maxpower@...> wrote:



He may be a narcissist, but he didn't start any wars, he was the first president to meet with North Korea, and now this.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512209-trump-says-hes-considering-snowden-pardon


Re: Transitional Programme | A Transition to Nowhere | Prometheus

Carl Peters
 

I think Joseph Green has replied effectively to comments and questions about his articles on Trotsky and Ethiopia. I would add two things: (1) Louis Proyect’s “So what?” regarding Selassie’s expansionism and oppression of national minorities in Ethiopia is a red flag to activists of today who are demanding a review of the so-called heroes of history. Proyect’s attitude, “so what” if Cromwell massacred the Irish, is not acceptable. LP compares it to Mustafa Kemal’s “suppression” of Armenians and Kurds, which he accepts because according to him Kemal was “historically progressive.” There was nothing progressive about the Armenian Holocaust. Nor was there anything progressive about the slaughter of native peoples in America, which LP tosses off with a “so what.” Activists of today are demanding a review of bourgeois heroes like Lincoln and Washington, smashing statues and demanding a recasting of others, to better reflect these heroes’ actual position in history. It’s an insult to them to say “so what?” (2) I’m disappointed that commentators on JG’s articles don’t talk about their relevance to recent political events and organizations of today. JG’s articles discuss the relevance of Trotsky’s views to the views of Trotskyist organizations today like WWP of the U.S. and SWP of Britain. Working class activists trying to build opposition to the Iraq war in 2003-04 were faced with an embarrassing problem, that some of the largest left groups organizing opposition to Bush’s war actually supported Saddam Hussein. This helped divide and cripple the movement. The same issue has come up again and again in recent years, as prominent left groups have openly supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic in Iran, Bashir Assad in Syria, etc. This is not just an accident or a mistake but a continuous line crippling the left opposition to imperialism in the U.S., Britain and elsewhere. JG’s articles try to tie this line to a common ancestry, Trotsky on Ethiopia. Was this wrong? Commentators, if they’re going to critique JG’s articles, should comment on their contemporary political relevance and explain their own stand regarding “national heroes” like Saddam Hussein, Bashir Assad, the Taliban and the Khomenei-ites of Iran.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Trump says he's considering Snowden pardon

Max Power <maxpower@...>
 

He may be a narcissist, but he didn't start any wars, he was the first president to meet with North Korea, and now this.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512209-trump-says-hes-considering-snowden-pardon


Re: The Left Has Turned Into a Guild Hall

Max Power <maxpower@...>
 

You demonstrate what the article is describes: who can say what? When this idea makes it into The Nation, it will be considered groundbreaking.

If these articles really are a dime a dozen, why don't they dominate the "left" discourse? Why are the people who write them deplatformed?


Re: The Left Has Turned Into a Guild Hall

Dan La Botz
 

Thanks for the info about Quillette, Dan

My latest book, my first novel.
trotskyintijuana.com



On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 2:03 PM Louis Proyect <lnp3@...> wrote:
On 8/16/20 2:00 PM, Dan La Botz wrote:
What's Quillette?
Dan

The journal of the Intellectual Dark Web. They've published articles by the hateful Jordan Peterson. One of the key figures had a chummy interview with Matt Taibbi about cancel culture.

https://louisproyect.org/2020/07/24/matt-taibbi-the-harpers-open-letter-and-the-intellectual-dark-web/


Why the Working Class Votes Against Its Economic Interests

Louis Proyect
 

NY Times Sunday Book Review, August 16, 2020

Why the Working Class Votes Against Its Economic Interests

Credit...Aaron Lowell Denton

    • 267

THE SYSTEM
Who Rigged It, How We Fix It
By Robert B. Reich
BREAK ’EM UP
Recovering Our Freedom From Big Ag, Big Tech, and Big Money
By Zephyr Teachout

One of the mysteries in politics for decades now has been why white working-class Americans began to vote Republican in large numbers in the 1960s and 1970s. After all, it was Democrats who supported labor unions, higher minimum wages, expanded unemployment insurance, Medicare and generous Social Security, helping to lift workers into the middle class.

Of course, an alternative economic view, led by economists like Milton Friedman, was that this turn toward the Republican Party was rational and served workers’ interests. He emphasized free markets, entrepreneurialism and the maximization of profit. These, Friedman argued, would raise wages for many and even most Americans.

But wages did not rise. And yet many in the working class kept voting Republican, still seemingly angered by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, which was dedicated to helping the poor and assuring equal rights for people of color. In the 1980s, under Ronald Reagan, income inequality began to rise sharply; wages for typical Americans stagnated and poverty and homelessness increased. Capital investment remained relatively weak despite deep tax cuts (as it does today under Donald Trump). At the same time, antitrust regulation was severely wounded, and giant corporations began to monopolize industry after industry.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

In 2004, Thomas Frank’s book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” tried to explain why a once Democratic state had turned resolutely Republican. His eloquent review of the rhetoric of the age was instructive.

But the presidential election of 2016 sent the sharpest message yet. Working-class voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin opted for Trump, and apparently against their economic interests. Trump had succeeded in appealing to their anger and the Democrats were caught flat-footed.

  • Give the gift they'll open every day.
Subscriptions to The Times. Starting at $25.

Two new books, “The System,” by the former labor secretary Robert B. Reich, and “Break ’Em Up,” by the lawyer and activist Zephyr Teachout, a onetime candidate for New York State attorney general, are among the latest examples of an evolving set of explanations that try to make sense of the 2016 results.

A powerful money-fueled oligarchy has emerged in America that is an enemy of democracy, Reich writes. The self-interested power of the nation’s wealthy often goes unnoticed by voters, and is partly misdirected by right-wing rhetoric about issues like immigration. But it leads to lower wages, less product choice and abusive labor practices. Trump has harnessed the frustration of the working class, Reich says, but he was a “smokescreen” for the oligarchy. Reich has an almost unmatched ability to make insightful observations about the nation’s inequities, and in “The System,” he observes that the question is no longer Democrat versus Republican or left versus right, but “democracy versus oligarchy.”

To Teachout, what’s behind our rigged system is the close cousin of oligarchy: corporate monopoly. Teachout lists her culprits, among them familiar names: Amazon, Google, Facebook, Monsanto, AT&T, Verizon, Walmart, Pfizer, Comcast, Apple and CVS. These companies “represent a new political phenomenon,” she says, “a 21st-century form of centralized, authoritarian government.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

Two dramatic related facts underscore the claims of both Reich and Teachout. The much discussed rise of wealth among the top 0.1 percent, which now has 20 percent of the nation’s wealth compared with only 10 percent 40 years ago, has been brought to light in recent years by the innovative economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. The flip side is that wages for the large majority of American workers have stagnated more or less over this same period.

According to Reich, the “anti-establishment fury” that is the result of such inequity supersedes racial prejudice as the cause of Trump’s success. In 2001, more than three out of four workers were satisfied that they could get ahead by working hard. In 2014, only slightly more than one out of two thought so. Voters wanted badly to blame it all on the swamp Trump promised to clean up.

For Reich, the big oligarchical companies have the lobbying and campaign-financing muscle to mold the rules in their own favor. They can win enormous tax cuts, suppress financial and environmental regulations, acquire new patents and subsidies, fight for free trade — it is a long list. For years, they successfully battled against higher minimum wages and labor laws that restricted their union-busting efforts.

Teachout, a dogged scholar, lays out a comprehensive list of damage done to American consumers by monopolized industries like Big Pharma, fossil fuels, Silicon Valley, health insurance, banking and communications giants from Verizon to Facebook and Google. She provides example after example of how these companies limit consumer choice and suppress regulation. Google and Facebook may make access to some news easier, but they also undermine the profitability of the print news organizations, putting many of them out of business. Big Pharma is protected from competition by questionable patents and by ever lighter regulations. The nation’s private health care system, dominated by a relative handful of insurance companies, keeps costs much higher in the United States than in the rest of the rich world. For Teachout, the solution follows as night follows day. Break up the big companies and reintroduce competition. (Surprisingly, this is straightforward mainstream economic theory.)

But both Reich and especially Teachout should temper their anticorporate zeal, at least to a degree. Big companies have often done good while also doing bad. In the 1800s, the A.&P. grocery chain provided a wide range of products, though it put countless mom and pop stores out of business. Ford built a cheap functional car in the 1920s, and Apple an affordable personal computer in recent years. Some balance is required.

Still, they are mostly right. Here is Teachout’s general recommendation: “Instead of protesting Pfizer on Tuesday for hiking drug prices, Comcast on Wednesday for suppressing union voices and Amazon on Thursday for getting billions in subsidies, we should unite behind a coherent agenda, demanding that antitrust authorities break up Pfizer and Comcast, Amazon and Facebook, Monsanto and Tyson.”

Both authors say that Ronald Reagan led the way to the swift undoing of traditional antitrust regulation in the 1980s. But Reich is almost as harsh on the Clinton and Obama administrations. Even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, he writes, they allowed antitrust enforcement to “ossify,” let companies hammer away at trade unions and went easy on Wall Street. They were also soft on the issue of campaign contributions, failing to advocate for public financing of elections.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

Why? Reich argues that the Democrats chose to turn their backs on the working class and pursue suburban swing voters. He knows, he tells us. He was there. And he reports that the Democrats “drank from the same campaign funding trough as the Republicans — big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.”

Reich makes an example of Jamie Dimon, the chairman of JPMorgan Chase. For Reich, he is representative of the C.E.O. class that talks about corporate social responsibility but rarely practices it. A lifetime Democrat, Dimon was a major supporter of the Trump tax cut and does not support an increase in the minimum wage.

Teachout by and large shares Reich’s anger and may even exceed it. Yet both find reasons for optimism in new laws and grass-roots movements. America achieved marriage equality for gays and lesbians, elected a Black man president and made the Affordable Care Act law. Reich insists democracy will ultimately prevail over oligarchy. And Teachout sees America embarking on a new antimonopoly moment.

These are valuable books, and the anger they will generate may prove politically energizing. But Reich’s claim that democracy will somehow prevail underestimates the dangers we face. As for Teachout, more competition may help alleviate some problems, but it is in fact an idealized version of free market thinking.

Meanwhile, the current president is moving in exactly the opposite direction. He is promising cuts in social policies that may well increase middle-income and working-class frustration. He wants to rewrite the official definition of poverty to claim that there are fewer poor. He undermines the rule of law on a regular basis. The Supreme Court has been stacked with extreme conservatives. Voter suppression is common.

Is it any wonder that many fear democracy in America may not prevail?



Re: The Left Has Turned Into a Guild Hall

Louis Proyect
 

On 8/16/20 2:00 PM, Dan La Botz wrote:
What's Quillette?
Dan

The journal of the Intellectual Dark Web. They've published articles by the hateful Jordan Peterson. One of the key figures had a chummy interview with Matt Taibbi about cancel culture.

https://louisproyect.org/2020/07/24/matt-taibbi-the-harpers-open-letter-and-the-intellectual-dark-web/


Re: The Left Has Turned Into a Guild Hall

Dan La Botz
 

What's Quillette?
Dan

My latest book, my first novel.
trotskyintijuana.com



On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 1:48 PM Louis Proyect <lnp3@...> wrote:
On 8/16/20 1:43 PM, Tristan Sloughter wrote:
The Bellows appears to be a site created by people who for some reason consider themselves "leftists" (in some cases even "Marxist" somehow!) but can not get their right wing views published in left publications and thus needed a place to complain?


When I saw Angela Nagle's name, the thought crossed my mind that we are dealing with a leftwing version of Quillette.


Edward P. Jones’s Carefully Quantified Literary World

Louis Proyect
 

THE AMERICANS

NY Times, August 16, 2020

Edward P. Jones’s Carefully Quantified Literary World

ImageEdward P. Jones, in 2005.
Edward P. Jones, in 2005.Credit...Holde Schneider/VISUM, via Redux

In June, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas made a speech opposing statehood for the District of Columbia, comparing its residents unfavorably with the people of Wyoming, who while fewer in number were in the senator’s view more deserving of a star on the flag. Wyoming, he said, is a “well-rounded working-class state,” while Washington is a city full of “bureaucrats and other white-collar professionals.”

My first thought was that Cotton must not have read the short stories of Edward P. Jones. There are 28 of them, evenly divided between “Lost in the City” (1992) and “All Aunt Hagar’s Children” (2006) and all set mostly within the boundaries of the nation’s capital. They are populated by hard-working people, some of them employed by agencies of the federal government, many more striving to gain a foothold in the middle class while toiling as chauffeurs, shopkeepers, retail workers and bus drivers. A few are doctors, lawyers and soldiers. There are some criminals and layabouts in the mix too, but even Wyoming has its share of those. A population granted such exquisitely detailed literary representation might also deserve the political kind. This may be the place to note that nearly all of Jones’s Washingtonians, like roughly half of their real-life counterparts, are Black.

I know that it’s silly to imagine that a hard ideological position could be dissolved by fiction, and I should point out that statehood doesn’t figure explicitly among the concerns voiced by Jones’s characters, who are of course entirely imaginary. Although nobody who has read these books will quite believe that they aren’t real.

The city they live in very much is. “All the places that I write about are real,” Jones said in an interview with Hilton Als in 2013. Every story abounds in specific, knowable locations — blocks, intersections, street addresses, all encrypted in the abstract alphabetical-mathematical-geographical code of Washington’s neighborhoods: the barbershop “on the corner of 3rd and L Streets, Northwest”; “Georgia had always considered the corners of 5th and M as her lucky corners”; “Miss Jenny had come out of Hahn’s shoe store, crossed New York Avenue and was going up 7th Street”; the building at 1708 10th Street, “around the corner from the fire station on R Street.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

That last address, the home of a domestic worker named Roxanne Stapleton who is suddenly and mysteriously struck blind, was one of Jones’s childhood homes. “I never knew anybody that happened to,” Jones told Als. “But I had to put her someplace to live, so I might as well put her in our 10th Street apartment, in a building that I knew.”

The cumulative effect of this kind of knowledge, this abundance of verifiable local information, is to endow the stories with a distinctive credibility. If Jones tells you someone found a parking space “on S Street, between 10th and 11th,” you believe him. And this trust extends beyond geography into matters of history, genealogy and family life. The word “realism” isn’t quite adequate, and in any case not everything that happens in Jones’s Washington can be called realistic. The Devil, having swum across the Anacostia River, appears in a Safeway supermarket to tempt and bamboozle a young mother who secretly lusts after a man who isn’t her husband. Another woman experiences a series of “miracles” — an unsettling euphemism for horrifying mishaps in which she is the only survivor. Superstition and formal religion shape the thinking of many characters, especially those old enough to remember the Southern places where they lived before the capital summoned them.

Image
Toni Morrison often said that her goal as a writer was never to solicit or pander to “the white gaze.” Jones, like many African-American writers who arrived in Morrison’s wake, renders his world with a similar kind of confidence.Credit...Hilton Als

But “magical realism,” a worn-out phrase in any case, doesn’t capture what Jones is doing in these stories from “All Aunt Hagar’s Children,” or in the sections of his novel “The Known World” (2003) that depart from a narrow set of assumptions about what might happen and why. While he was making his way as a writer, Jones, who was born in Washington in 1950, spent time working at Science magazine and then at a journal called Tax Notes, and there is a patient, empirical precision in his writing that might be said to fit in with the missions of those publications. His prose, even when it evokes natural mysteries and complex emotions, is always exacting in its observation and meticulous in its accounting. The world he invites us to know is a scrupulously documented, carefully quantified world. The attentive reader will notice the profusion of numbers: ages calculated to the month, times something has happened noted as if in a ledger, significant events measured mathematically. In the second paragraph of “Old Boys, Old Girls,” we learn that “seven months after he stabbed the second man — a 22-year-old with prematurely gray hair who had ventured out of Southeast for only the sixth time in his life — Caesar was tried for murder in the second degree.” At the end of the story “Common Law,” we are told that Georgia, a woman who has been trapped in an abusive relationship, is “one and a half years from marrying Alvin Deloach,” “more than eight years from marrying Vaughn Anderson,” “just about 30 years from seeing her first grandchild come into the world” and “more than 40 and a half years from death.”

Sometimes the numbers are from literal receipts — bills of sale for goods and services, and in “The Known World,” which takes place mostly in Virginia in the decade before the Civil War, for human beings. Jones also offers receipts in a more recent, metaphorical sense — as evidence of something that somebody might have reason to doubt, as proof against equivocation, indifference and outright denial.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

What risks being denied is what has historically, in America, been dismissed and devalued: the matter — the material, human actuality — of Black lives. Jones isn’t an overtly political writer. Historical currents like the civil rights movement and abolitionism flow past and over his characters, but don’t tend to sweep them up. Apart from an occasional reminder that the president also lives in Washington, the drama of American politics takes place far from the parts of Northeast, Northwest and Anacostia where Jones’s people work, love and dream. This is partly an effect of segregation, which, depending on the decade, is either a matter of overt policy or of longstanding practice. Jones’s depiction of the pleasures of life in Washington’s Black neighborhoods might seem nostalgic if some fundamental change had taken place to sweep away a social environment defined by racism, but that isn’t the kind of reassurance he is inclined to provide.

Credit...

Jones's prose is always exacting in its observation and meticulous in its accounting. The world he invites us to know is scrupulously documented and carefully quantified.

1992

As for the gospel singers, doctors, nurses and clerks — which is also to say the grandparents, husbands, ex-lovers, orphans and spinsters — who populate these places, they hardly need to spell out the facts of American life to themselves or one another. Toni Morrison often said that her goal as a writer was never to solicit or pander to “the white gaze,” in other words to cast off the burden assumed by many earlier Black writers of explaining and instructing white readers in matters of race. Jones, like many African-American writers who arrived in Morrison’s wake, renders his world with a similar kind of confidence. This isn’t a matter of exclusion or separatism — a book can be opened by anybody, and open any mind — but of fidelity to the truth of experience.

So it might go without saying — though nothing really does — that a white reader enters Jones’s world from a different angle. What comes as news to me may strike you as a gentle reminder of something you always knew. What I feel as revelation you might experience as recognition. Places that seem strange to my eyes are no doubt home in someone else’s.

And realities that white people have the privilege of ignoring, euphemizing or attempting to justify are part of the infrastructure of Black existence. Children in Jones’s stories are told that movie theaters and other amusements are off limits to them. Neighborhoods are broken up for redevelopment, discovered by gentrifying “pioneers,” allowed to fall into decay. The police show up now and then — useless, brutal, occasionally helpful. The violence and cruelty of the Jim Crow South, and of slavery before that, is an aspect of shared memory, as is the sweetness of life in a region about which someone says, “It’s the worst mama in the world and it’s the best mama in the world.”

An ordinary word that Jones uses frequently enough to make it feel freighted with special meaning is “people.” It can refer to kin and community, but also to powerful collective entities that periodically assert their will and influence. “White people,” of course, and “the world the white people had made for themselves,” but also specialized departments within that world. “The Social Security people.” “The city government people.” “The American military people in Okinawa.” There is, I think, a quiet point being made by this locution, which is that however much we may think about power and racism as systemic or structural phenomena, they are never truly impersonal. Every injustice, like every kindness, is carried out by human beings, even if they are unaware of the effects of or reasons for what they do. Sometimes “the government people” and others are benevolent, sometimes mean (generally they are less brutal than their equivalents in Louisiana or Arkansas), but their presence is always at once intimate and alien, their rules and attitudes arbitrary and often inscrutable.

Credit...

Everyone in “The Known World” is linked, and defined, by the institution of slavery, another abstract, dehumanizing system of laws and customs that is also a network of human choices, desires and mercies.

2003 | WINNER OF THE PULITZER PRIZE

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

In “Marie,” the final story in “Lost in the City,” Marie Delaveaux Wilson, a widow living in an apartment at 12th and M, finds herself ensnared in a Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare, summoned by “the federal government people” to a meeting with a Social Security official who is never available to see her. “Given the nature of life — particularly the questions asked by the Social Security people — she always took more than they might ask for — her birth certificate, her husband’s death certificate, doctors’ letters.” Receipts for her existence.

In the face of this indignity, Jones allows Marie a small gesture of rebellion: She slaps the face of an inconsiderate receptionist named Vernelle. But the story isn’t primarily about oppression and defiance. It’s more about the way certain dramatic moments occur in the flow of time and consciousness that defines who a person is. The episodes at the Social Security office (at 21st and M, Northwest) are threaded through other memories and encounters, including a series of interviews conducted by a Howard University student named George Carter as part of an oral history project. Marie is willing to share reminiscences of her arrival in D.C. (where her mother had thought “God and his people” must live), and the reader samples some excerpts, but in the end she stashes the tapes in a drawer, “away from the things she needed to get her hands on regularly,” and resolves never to listen again.

Her biography is thus consigned to a kind of epistemological limbo, recorded but not entirely known. And this kind of half-light — the intuition that the whole story can only be grasped through the flickers and shadows cast off by the facts — is part of the atmosphere of Jones’s world. There is always more to be discovered within its boundaries. Read a few chapters of either collection and you will become aware of a distinctive chronological rhythm, a way of pulling time forward, backward and sideways, slowing it down and speeding it up.

Jones comes close to inventing new verb tenses. “One day, you will see that Tennessee Creek again for the first time,” a woman writes in a letter to a child she has recently met. “And I will see the house again for the first time.” The beginning of “Tapestry,” the closing story in “All Aunt Hagar’s Children,” offers a vivid, richly detailed narrative of events that didn’t actually happen, but that would have happened “were it not for the sleeping car porter.” It’s not until four pages in that we learn the porter’s name, and at the end, after he has married Anne Perry (who might otherwise have married Lucas Turner, but definitely not Ned Murray), Jones shifts back to a slightly different subjunctive mood, as Anne pictures what would happen if she were to abandon her new husband.

His name, by the way, is George Carter, just like the young man in “Marie,” who might be one of the 21 grandchildren or even 12 great-grandchildren noted in the final passage of “Tapestry.” That seems likely. The temporal loops and echoes don’t just happen within the stories, but between them. We are frequently meeting people again for the first time. Reading the part of “Marie” in which she deters a would-be mugger by stabbing his hand with a seven-inch knife she keeps in her coat pocket casts you back to “Young Lions,” the fourth story in “Lost in the City,” whose main character is Marie’s assailant, Caesar Matthews. He will return in “Old Boys and Old Girls,” the fourth story of “All Aunt Hagar’s Children,” which follows him through a stretch in prison.

The links and knots are too many to enumerate, and I’m by no means sure that, after multiple readings, I have accounted for all of them. “Lost in the City” begins with a delicate vignette called “The Girl Who Raised Pigeons.” The man who gave the girl those pigeons is a barber named Miles Patterson whose remarkable origins are related in the first story of “All Aunt Hagar’s Children,” called “In the Blink of God’s Eye.” Georgia, the survivor of domestic abuse in “Common Law,” figures in the title story of “Lost in the City.” Those are, by the way, the eighth stories in their respective books.

After a while, you learn to pay close attention to the names and addresses. Have I met this person before? Will I be seeing her again? Didn’t she and that other family live on the same block of H Street? Was it at the same time? Did they know each other? These aren’t just puzzles to solve, but invitations to reread, to retrace your steps until you feel as if those people know you too.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

There is precedent for this method, of course, though I can’t think of any writer who has sustained this kind of intricate symmetry in books published more than a decade apart. James Joyce’s “Dubliners” is 15 stories set in and around a single city, with some similar echoes and overlappings. In the story “Bad Neighbors,” Jones has a book-loving high school student named Sharon Palmer fall for a pair of books that seem to provide a clue to her author’s influences: “The Street,” Ann Petry’s multivocal, time-shifting 1946 novel of life in Harlem; and the Irish writer Mary Lavin’s “Tales From Bective Bridge.”

“Lost in the City” and “All Aunt Hagar’s Children” communicate with each other across the mighty expanse of “The Known World,” which won a Pulitzer Prize. The novel is a major work about American slavery that grows out of what Jones calls the “footnote” that there were a few Black slaveholders in the antebellum South. The principal “master” in the book is Henry Townsend. Henry’s father, a skilled woodcarver named Augustus, purchased his own freedom and then his wife’s and their son’s, and was dismayed when his son grew up to purchase slaves for himself.

Credit...

Jones has a way of pulling time forward, backward and sideways, slowing it down and speeding it up.

2006

“In 1855 in Manchester County, Virginia” — a fictional “postage stamp,” like William Faulkner’s Yoknapatawpha, slotted into the geography of the real world — “there were 34 free Black families, with a mother and father and one child or more, and eight of those free families owned slaves, and all eight knew one another’s business.” This business, intimate and economic, is the broad subject of the book, which centers on Henry’s death and its aftermath.

But like the stories in “Lost in the City” and “All Aunt Hagar’s Children,” “The Known World” moves freely, at times vertiginously, in time and space, propelling characters and their descendants suddenly into the decades after Emancipation and invoking the perspectives of invented 20th-century scholars to illuminate Manchester County’s history. We are led on journeys to Louisiana, Texas, the Carolinas, Philadelphia and Boston — and Washington too, naturally — always circling back to the knotted destinies of the people, white and Black, enslaved and free, who live on and around Henry’s plantation.

Their lives are linked, and defined, by the institution of slavery, another abstract, dehumanizing system of laws and customs that is also a network of human choices, desires, crimes and mercies. The essential cruelty of the system is stark and simple — the threat and arrival of horrific violence, the forcible separation of families, the unending plunder of dignity, labor and joy — but life within it is as complicated as anywhere else. Like the people we meet in Jones’s stories, everyone in “The Known World,” however brief our encounters with them, has a mind, a soul and a destiny that defy caricature or easy summary. They dwell in a terrible, beautiful place that draws you back to it again and again.

Edward P. Jones, who turns 70 this year, has produced a compact body of work that keeps growing. I hope that he adds to it, but I also think it’s bad manners for critics to demand more work from the artists we admire. I’m content to set aside a month each year to make my way, a story a day, through “Lost in the City” and “All Aunt Hagar’s Children,” and to make room on the calendar for further explorations of “The Known World.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

I’m also aware that every writer is unique, and that it’s absurd to dream of an Edward P. Jones for Wilmington, Del., or Cincinnati, or Salt Lake City. Washington, D.C., a city as neglected by our literati as it is scorned by our politicians, is lucky to have this one.

But I do occasionally allow myself to wish that Jones could somehow become a government agency, something like the Census Bureau or the I.R.S., with a reach that could extend beyond Washington, across the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, past the Virginia and Maryland state lines, moving block by block, house by house, in every direction, until every lost child and forgotten grandparent is accounted for and we see our country again for the first time.