From Yip to C. Wright Mills

[Chris Brady <chris_brady@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The negligence of Marxist Yip Harburg has similarities with the muddying
of Mills.  This ideological redaction is part of the maintenance of the
hegemony of the ruling class.  The blockade of alternatives to the
dominant order is a necessity in publications that cater to the common
reader.

In the review of the new collection of the letters of C. Wright Mills by
John B. Judis (?The Spiritual Wobbly : The sociologist C. Wright Mills
did not fit in with either Marxists or liberals,? in New York Times Book
Review July 9, 2000), this reviewer of books for the conventional
liberal, dominant culture denigrates ?anachronistic Marxism? and snubs
the red left.  He portrays Mills as a flawed genius whose work would
stand better if that embarrassing socialistic stuff could be quietly
jettisoned.

As far as anachronistic goes, we know that it?s The New York Times Book
Review that is the trusty, old-fashioned tool of the bourgeoisie,
however, and that is why Judis makes the cut with his passé points about
Mills.  Judis just jabs away with unsubstantiated barbs instead of
well-argued points such as ?[Mills had a] disastrously simple-minded
view of international relations. During World War II, he regarded the
Allied and Axis powers as bent equally upon creating a new militarized
corporate capitalism,? (?my response to this was a laughed ?What?!?),
and ?During the cold war, Mills's anti-authoritarianism led him to
embrace an equally unfounded equivalence between Eisenhower's
''Amerika'' -- Mills's spelling in a September 1957 letter to Harvey
Swados -- and Khrushchev's Soviet Union??

First of all, I doubt if many on our Marxism List would disagree with
Mills?s take on World War II.  It would be naïve to accept the view
handed to us by the US imperialists that they ever defended democracy.
Secondly, Judis fails to discriminate between the various fabrications
of ?equivalence? that critics could plausibly erect, rightly or wrongly,
between the USA and the USSR.  For him it is plainly incorrect to
recognize any similarities between the two great superpowers of the
twentieth century (a sentence that in itself shows the inconsistencies
in his reasoning, or lack of?).   Judis leaves no doubt that in his mind
the USA was not only different but remains cleanly superior to the
USSR.  This opinion?not an argument?remains pathetically shallow.

For all his attempts to locate Mills in some pink fog amidst liberals
and leftists, Judis made the unexceptional oversight of ignoring the
independent socialist magazine Monthly Review.  Mills contributed an
essay to MR in those important years before his death, that very period
in which Judis claims Mills began ?to see himself as a political
activist whose words will lead directly to deeds.?  Judis notes that
Mills described his pro-Cuban Revolution book ''Listen, Yankee'' as ''a
pivotal book for me.?  ''Listen, Yankee'' came out around the same time
as Leo Huberman and Paul Sweezy?s influential _Cuba: Anatomy of a
Revolution_ adding to the opposition against US imperialism ?from
within.

Judis persists in recognizing Mills --despite his ?disastrously
simple-minded view of international relations?--  as ?a kind of
difficult genius? whose ?view of his work as art and literature probably
helped him to attain a certain objectivity even in the midst of his
indignation.?  Nevertheless, Mills?s ?vices seem to have been integral
to his virtues.?  To make his ?genius? appear bona fide in the NYTBR,
Judis must make sure that the vice of socialism is slighted.  In the
context of NYTBR?s output over the years it is too  boringly familiar
(e.g., The NYTBR has NEVER reviewed any book published by the Monthly
Review Press, regardless of the fame of the author or the originality or
style of the material).  Thankfully for the NYTBR, C. Wright Mills
conveniently died soon after he made his radical left turn, and produced
no further material that they would have to so obviously ignore, or
pillory as proof of his perfidy.

The analysis of hegemony in action is a serious matter.
Of greater importance is the application of counter-hegemony.
It is important to hone our theory, but the point is praxis.

YFTR,
Chris Brady