Category: Student Posts

In the “road to hell chapters” that we read for class, it seemed like it was more of a personalized experience and a detailed extension of what we read for last class) The reason why is because it follows the lives of two people, one black and the other white and even though their livelihoods were very different they were actually very similar and passionate about the same things. They had the same communist world view (3) and trying to gain the approval of their fathers. I found this interesting since in order to gain their approval they are basically confining themselves to those set of values and standards set by family. They were brothers in a movement that believed they could change the world through violent revolution (3) and it was their generation that was going to do that. This reminded me of the other reading we did for last class on the black student movement where that generation was going to start the revolution and do the things that their fathers could not. For George in particular, his mother was confining him because she worried about his safety so in this way she is so scared to step outside of her comfort zone and will do anything to protect her kid (even moving him to a new school and not letting him play outside in the street). 

The way that Steve and others idolized George reminded me of the reading from week 6 by Hollander. We talked a lot in class about idolizing ones heroes when we were discussing the soviet union and communism.

There were lots of instances in this reading where i had to stop and consider a bigger picture point of view such as what is really going on here socially? In general, it was interesting to see the roles reverses in that Steve gets peat up as a privileged white man but its because he is working with black individuals as a civil rights worker a part of a movement, a movement that not everyone is happy about. 

Another part that I thought was interesting was when steve was thinking about how whites would choose to follow the black movement and if they would do it without questioning what was going on. “In the whites attempt to belong” this part connects to the intellectuals who would align themselves to the working class since they did not like their own class or associated negative connotations with it, particularly, the french intellectuals. The working class was considered by french intellectuals to be a whole working community and therefore they had a pure idealization of the working class. which is connected to what I was talking about earlier with idealizing one’s heroes. 

In this week’s blog post something that I want to look into more is our class discussion on the new student left. This is not a group that I would have ever labeled as a part of the intellectual class. Many different topics and thoughts were shared about this group and their influence or lack there of. The thought was brought up that this group might have actually been naive in thought and action, but I want to push back on that. After discussing this group I think that they laid the groundwork for younger people to be involved in social and political movements. This group not only allowed for a future student intellectual class to rise but also brought about a lot of change as well. The involvement that was discussed in this reading includes but is not limited to civil rights, anti-war, religious freedom, and many others. All of these protests are something I was aware of but had never thought of as an intellectual act before now. On page 430 of the Feuer reading, he states “The movements were always a source of intellectual ferment on the campuses; they had a sense of the drama of ideas. They made the average undergraduate and professor more aware of the emerging problems and realities of the world. They were a channel for the noblest idealistic aspirations of adolescence”. This part of the conclusion encapsulated my thoughts on the reading and rounded out how these student movements are truly an act of the intellectual class. 

I wanted also to explore how we can see the influence of this group in today’s society. Student protests are something becoming more widespread. And while it might not be the same protest as the Students of the new left they have the same implications. In my lifetime there has been a large shift in what younger people fight back against. In recent times some of the things that come to mind are social and political such as gun safety, women’s health rights, Black Lives Matter, and LGBTQ equality. These are the main issues that are arising at the forefront of society and since my time in college, I have seen and been a part of movements like these on campus. But in relation to the quote, I stated earlier I question that I want to pose is while I feel that student movements are effective and influential, do older generations actually listen and want to enact change as much as students do? Is there a better way to gain the older generations’ respect when it comes to raising awareness on social and political issues?

Our discussion of the Vietnam War last class made me realize that my previous education on this matter was rather biased and not representative of the true perspectives that Americans had felt about the war at this time. I was unaware that until  around 1967, most Americans supported the war and thought that the United State’s involvement was justified. I was always told that many Americans were unsupportive of the war and wanted to get our troops out of Vietnam. In high school I remember being shown pictures of anti-Vietnam propaganda and photographs of protests in the streets. Therefore, it was surprising to me to learn that this was not always the case, especially in the first few years of war. Yet, when looking at different perspectives of the war it is too generalizable to label leftists as either anti-war or pro-war. There is much complexity with cold war politics. It is too simple to say that the United States’ mission there was completely altruistic and selfless. There is one side which consisted of the radical left which believed that Americans were totally wrong, and even evil. They went as far as believing that Americans were dessacrating the environment  in Vietnam. They also argued that there is no legitimacy to the South Vietnamese regime so we should not be helping their cause. I think that part of the reason why the United States lost the war was that there was not enough support from Americans themselves (especially the Old Left). American political elites were not serious enough about the war and there were Anti-American protests on the street that were publicized by the media. The Soviet Union saw that  Americans couldn’t sustain war efforts too much longer and that their own people were not unified which put Americans in a vulnerable position in the war.

I found our discussion of the Old Left to be very thought provoking from last week’s class discussion. We were able to distinguish the difference between the Old Left and the Contemporary Left’s agendas and perspectives on social issues. We determined that the modern contemporary left prioritizes social rights issues such as LGBTQ and black rights, whereas the Old Left more so consisted of students who were concerned about classroom politics. It was interesting to unravel this generalizable youth phenomenon that took place around the sixties. We specifically talked about the importance of the Berkeley student movement and the irony in their “free speech” campaign. They claimed that they were advocating for free speech when they did not actually believe in free speech, they only thought their side could talk and they wanted to shut down any other opposing sides from expressing their views. I personally think that a movement cannot be successful without tolerating the constructive criticism of other perspectives. It is an ineffective and totalitarian agenda to try to shut down other groups’ freedom of speech. Furthermore, I think it is important to look at the generational conflicts that emerged during the formation and perpetuation of the Old Left. The view of these young leftists, which is still inherent to young generations today, was that they were on a mission and they knew more than their parents did. Their agenda was also fueled by a sense of anger and limited freedom they felt were constricted by the older generations.

For the reading that focuses on the student movements in the sixties, I immediately saw continuing themes from the last readings. The phrase agents of social or agent of transformation was brought up when the author was talking about C. Wright Mills, since he was relying on the intellectuals to be those agents of social change. (389) other phrases that I found in this reading were ‘makers of history” which I believe that was one of the principles of Marxism 

The concept of anti-Americanism is continued in this chapter, which we also talked a lot about in the previous class, that essentially anti Americanism is communism (Soviet Union) and anyone who favors that mentality. Intellectuals gravitate towards communism due to the alienation of their own society, that they feel they dont have a place in. 

In the reading, it says that the black student movement was a generational revolt. I had never thought of it in that way, but as I was asking myself why that was the case, later in the reading it said that the educated minority now had the means to “fight back” unlike the previous generation, who did not. 

In the section about martyrdom, that part at the end that says “there was the students alienation from the world..”(399) that connected intellectuals to the black led student movements (intellectuals are students)

The student movement in the U.S. as it reemerged in 1960 is the first topic covered in this reading. It was an effort to bring about a fundamental shift in American culture, student activists held protests around the state and tried out different lifestyles during the student movement. It had not yet seen the strategic importance of the civil rights movement’s fusion with its own generational fight. It was marked by all the generational mission, generational conflict, and student elitist characteristics that originated on the University of California campus in its search for a strategic issue. Numerous instances of student movements that addressed current global issues were provided throughout the reading, including the Mississipi Project, the Negro-Student Movement, and the Civil Rights Struggle. Feuer’s key argument about students and their movements is in regards to the students and their movements is that the movements were always a source of intellectual ferment on the campuses and had a sense of the drama of ideas. They exposed the typical college student and lecturer to current issues and global realities. They served as a pipeline for adolescence’s highest idealistic ambitions. They also served as a pipeline for generational revolt feelings at the same time. As a result, they tended to hold doctrines that were extremist, rejecting the liberal principles of the elders, and opting for destructive political tactics. Between 1905 and 1940, there was hardly a single accomplishment that the student movements could take credit for. The student civil rights movement and the older generation’s leadership frequently clashed. The student movements are said to have served as a noteworthy incubator for political initiative and action. But much too frequently, they exhausted their participants. The activist had a degree of excitement that he could not sustain for very long. According to him, student movements have always been filled with sentiment and ideology that sees them as the elegant creators of history.

The divide between the Old and New Left is another subject this reading touches on. The New Left was a large political movement that primarily existed in the 1960s and 1970s. It was made up of activists from the West who fought for a variety of social causes, including changes in drug laws, environmental protection, feminism, LGBT rights, and civil and political rights. The Old Left, on the other hand, is less concerned with social concerns including abortion, drug use, feminism, LGBT rights, gender norms, immigration, and the elimination of the death penalty. Feuer made the point of how the student civil rights movement came repeatedly into conflict with the leadership of the older generation, in this case the students being the new left and the older generation being the old left. The New Left differed in one basic respect from the Old; more elitist, disenchanted with the working class, looking elsewhere to satisfy its needs for a populist identification, it was prepared, if need be, to look finally to the intellectuals themselves. It also rose predominantly out of an “affluent society” and moreover out of a relatively stable system; it therefore tended, when it was thought critically, to do so in moralistic rather than economic terms. The New Left also was an indicator of the pattern.

Questions:

1. Is there anything that the young intelligentsia could have done to avoid the clash with the older generation? What could the intellectuals have done better to avoid the clash with the older generation?

2. Can the Old left be described as the current right?

What stood out to me the most from our conversation in last week’s class was the bizarre self identification associated with the intellectual class. It surprised me that they see themselves as a subset of the working class. When I think of someone who is an intellectual I immediately associate them with the bourgeoisie. I think this misconception comes from the fact that typically intellectuals are extremely well educated and to me having access to higher levels of education is a sign of privilege. Also intellectuals often hold powerful positions in society and determine how society should be governed. This further made me think that they are associated within some subset of the bourgeoisie. In reality they consider themselves to be subset members of the proletariat class. This could be because of their view that workers are the agents of political change. It interested me that some intellectuals have opposing views on what to do with workers. Some think that they should directly involve themselves and even encourage a revolution from the working class. These intellectuals think that workers are so diluted by bourgeoisie capitalist power that they can’t help themselves without a vanguard to show them the way. They want to go along and push the process ahead. Some intellectuals go as far as having the desire to fight on the battlefield alongside their worker allies. Other intellectuals isolate themselves and think that only the workers are the ones capable of creating change. Some even think that intellectuals themselves are a part of the problem in society and society should be run by workers. This relates to our discussion of utopia and how intellectuals have different views on how we can achieve a utopian society through the working class.

After reading the Feuer chapter on “The New Student Left of the Sixties” it became so clear as to the amount of overlap between different socialist and communist movements. As we discussed in our last class at the very end, the reason Leninist intellectuals took power was that they felt that they needed to push the working class peasants in the direction of revolt. The working class simply does not have the means of education or knowledge to even comprehend such a thing or to know they could be the root of change in a society, therefore they need assistance from the intellectuals in order to reach their fullest potential. This is exactly the case of the New Student Left movement. Specifically when Feuer discusses the student movement taking interest in the black movement for civil rights, especially black students. Feuer quotes black Americans as being “lowliest of Americans”, similar to the way Lenin describes the proletariat in the Soviet system. The white intellectual students, disgruntled with their current life status and American society in general, are looking to turn their efforts in order to help those who are “lesser” rise up to their fullest potential.

What I think is interesting that Feuer points out is that the Black community in America was not looking for support from the white intellectual students. They were content with the way American society was being run and were ultimately conservative in their political views (Feuer pg. 396). The Black Student Movement was simply aiming to declare equal rights and to overcome the stereotypes plaguing their community at the time. I can imagine this is exactly the case in Soviet Russia; the intellectuals were looking for an oppressed group to grab onto to push their own agenda vicariously through.

In the Paul Hollander reading something I found interesting was the relationship between the intellectuals and their affinity for Joseph Stalin. In the reading Hollander stated two general propositions that explain the durable attraction of communist dictators. The first was the profound ignorance of the personalities, policies, and intentions of these dictators and the second was a remarkable capacity for projection and wishful thinking on the part of many intellectuals (of all human beings) for attributing qualities they highly value to individuals they were disposed to admire. Throughout the reading it seemed like all of the intellectuals who had something to say about Stalin talked about how well they were treated when the met him and raved about his character while ignoring what he was actually doing as the leader of the Soviet Union which lines up with the first proposition that Hollander stated about the profound ignorance of the personalities, policies, and intentions of dictators. This made more sense when we talked about in class how french intellectuals became communists because of their feeling of emptiness in their vocation of intellectuals because a good amount of the intellectuals who commented on Stalin in the reading were french intellectuals. This also poses the question of, do these french intellectuals that advocated for Stalin believe that he could make utopia possible in this world because we learned in class that communist believe utopia is possible in this world. Also, now that Stalin is no longer alive, do they still believe that they can achieve utopia without him?

In Hollander’s Intellectuals, the chapter begins with countless numbers of praises towards Stalin. Yet, given our current understanding of him and the Soviet Union under his rule, Stalin was a person “foreign to the very experience of love, without pity or mercy” and had an insatiable thirst for power. The praises all come from intellectuals, both western and within the Soviet Union, during Stalin’s time. 

Hollander claims that the two general reasoning behind western intellectuals’ worshiping of Stalin and other dictators are: 

1. Western intellectuals tend to have a “profound ignorance of the personalities, policies, and intentions” of them (p.120).
2. Western intellectuals had both the tendency and capacity to project qualities that they themselves value to others that they “were disposed to admire” (p.120).

While Hollander claims that these intellectuals admired cruel dictators like Stalin because of their ignorance of the dictator’s actual personality, I feel that there could be another huge reason behind this, giving the intellectuals the benefit of the doubt on their intellectual abilities. A possible explanation is that the dictators were able to control the flow of information out of the country. In an age without the internet, the only way that these western intellectuals could know about the reality under the ruling of the dictator was through other people’s reports or visiting the dictator’s nation. In both scenarios, they could be presented with false information, but they would have no way of verifying this information. Even when one visited the USSR, he or she would not ever see the whole reality. From my understanding, this really shows how powerful it is to have control over the media. Even in the modern day, with fact checks, we see so many people believing “fake news.” But, ultimately, philosophically speaking, how does one really know if what he knows is true? This again gets to an idea that came up during my conversation with Prof. Riley – under the Marxist view, the concept of truth is seen as a tool that the ruling class use to suppress and exploit the proletariats. Then, maybe psychologically, since one can never be sure of the truth, or a truth, one is inclined to believe in what one wishes to be the truth. This reasoning is present in Hollander’s chapter, and also we can see this is today’s social media – echo chambers, as some call them.

As for Duranty, I feel that he is quite hypocritical: he seemed to really “believed in the cause,” but he personally lived in Russia as a privileged individual. This is quite ironic to see that so many – the vast majority of people – are still being ripped off by the ruling class, under the name “socialism”; the goal to fully achieve socialism was to free every man so that we can all live under better conditions, yet in these actual implementations of socialism in USSR, femine and aristocracy showed that the Soviet socialism is no better than capitalism.

In reflection to the intellectuals praises of Stalin, I feel it is probably very hard to really know what really prompted these intellectuals to, whether intentionally or not, ignore the reality that they may or may not have seen. In Gustave Le Bon’s The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, one conclusion is that people behave quite differently while in crowds. The moment one defines them as part of a popular group, they could act very differently than when they are alone. I suspect that this is also part of human nature: a revolutionary feature that might benefit the survival of humans as a species by enabling us to have this special “group” mindset. And, thus, when people are really in situations similar to that of the USSR under Stalin, they might be doing things they don’t expect themselves to do.

Furthermore, the admiration of Stalin by western intellectuals may also be influenced by their own political beliefs and ideologies. Many of these intellectuals were likely sympathetic to the Marxist ideology, and thus saw Stalin as a leader who was implementing their ideals on a national level. This may have led them to overlook or dismiss reports of human rights abuses and other atrocities committed by Stalin’s regime, and to view Stalin as a hero and leader of the Marxist cause.

Additionally, it is worth considering the role of propaganda and manipulation in shaping the perceptions of western intellectuals towards Stalin. Stalin’s regime was highly skilled at using propaganda and censorship to control the flow of information within the country and to the outside world. This allowed the regime to present a highly sanitized and idealized version of life in the Soviet Union, and to suppress any information that did not align with this narrative. As a result, western intellectuals who visited the Soviet Union or relied on reports from the regime were likely to be presented with a distorted view of reality.

In conclusion, the admiration of Stalin by western intellectuals may be driven by a combination of factors, including ignorance of his true nature, idealization of communist ideology, and the effects of propaganda and manipulation. These factors may have led these intellectuals to overlook or dismiss reports of human rights abuses and other atrocities committed by Stalin’s regime, and to view him as a hero and leader of the Marxist cause. But among these factors, the most important one might be that these intellectuals themselves are willing to believe that Communism will succeed.