Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPcapitalist
I think Hofstadter dismisses Fitzhugh precisely because Fitzhugh cut both ways, endangering northern abolitionist "free love" radicals and exposing them as socialists. Note that this is not the same as the northern capitalists, who had little in common with these guys. But who knows why Hofstadter takes Calhoun seriously, but not Fitzhugh. Ask him. To me, the ideas are nearly identical, and that is why they are so important.

And there is plenty of Lincoln available on what he said about banks and corporations. See my article, "Abraham Lincoln and the Growth of Government in the Civil War Era," Continuity, Spring 1997.

I'll say again, Lincoln was consistent. He FIRMLY believed that labor was a cornerstone, but only a means to attaining a farm and/or industrial work. Even the socialist historians, like Foner, admit this.

850 posted on 11/18/2002 1:10:53 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies ]


To: LS
He FIRMLY believed that labor was a cornerstone, but only a means to attaining a farm and/or industrial work. Even the socialist historians, like Foner, admit this.

I think what we are getting into here is a question of semantics over the word "labor". Lincoln seems to use it as a verb whereas Marxism tend to use it as a noun.

Lincoln championed the idea that "labor" (v) meant work with rewards that could be accumulated to create capitol. i.e. -- people had the ability and freedom through hard work to advance.

The Marxists saw "labor" (n) as a static social class. In essence, while extolling the "nobility" of labor (n) as a class, Marxists looked down on labor (n) as helpless, unchanging and by definition, exploited, while Lincoln saw labor(v) as a necessary step in moving up the social ladder --- class mobility.

They both could say that labor comes before capital, but they meant very different things.

881 posted on 11/18/2002 3:46:03 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies ]

To: LS
But who knows why Hofstadter takes Calhoun seriously, but not Fitzhugh.

Most likely it has something to do with Calhoun's tangible role in American government compared to Fitzhugh, who was little more than a ranting crank.

In addition and contrary to your own implications of similarity, Calhoun as viewed by history in general was not the fringe ranter extremist that Fitzhugh was. Calhoun represented one extreme of the mainstream spectrum of southern political thought. But by comparison Fitzhugh was out in left field.

896 posted on 11/18/2002 7:58:04 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson