At Harvard, Marxism Quietly Goes Out of Style

At Revolution Books on Mass. Ave., titles by Marx, Lenin, and Mao Zedong conspire alongside homemade-looking Communist leaflets and copies of the "Revolutionary Worker," a radical periodical.

The store may have once been a Square giant, but now it squeaks by on donations. That change also reflects a shift at Harvard, once a bastion, if not a hotbed, of Marxism.

Students and faculty say they have turned away from the Father of Communism.

"Among students and faculty, [Marxism] doesn't cut much ice anymore," says Bliss Professor of Latin American History and Economics John Womack Jr. '59, a self-described Marxist who has been at Harvard since 1955.

Faculty and students are careful to note that Marx has not gone into total eclipse. Undergraduates remain interested in studying and discussing revolutionary ideas. Marx is alive and well in classes like Social Studies 10, Government 10 and Sociology 10, where the reading lists are peppered with socialist thinkers.

The communist thinker simply has a different kind of following now. He's the band Abba, not En Vogue. Marxism these days has appeal "in an odd sort of retro-manner," says Jedediah S. Purdy '97, an editor of Perspective who has studied Marx. "One might use the fashion metaphor that it is equivalent to showing up at a party in your '71 easy rider biker gear. It's a cachet of anachronism."

That doesn't mean a Marxist revival is just around the corner.

"I'm glad to see [Marxism] dead and gone," says Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53. "I'll keep a careful watch to stomp on it if I see any signs of life."

History

Womack remembers when Communists had it hard on campus. During the McCarthy witchhunts of the 1950s, not even Harvard's clout could repel the anti-Communist fervor.

"The McCarthyites bashed [Harvard] terribly," recalls Eaton Professor of the Science of Government, Emeritus, Samuel H. Beer, an admitted "bitter foe of Marxism."

"They'd say, 'President Conant must investigate his faculty," Beer says. "There was a prolonged harassment of the administration."

Communism became an important issue in everything, including student pranks. In his history The Harvard Century, author Richard N. Smith recalls one time during the 1950s when The Crimson pulled a joke on the Lampoon.

"When two Crimson editors stole the Lampoon's mascot, a large metal stork named Ibis, and presented it to Stalin as a gift from American students, and then the 'Poonies retalisted by reporting this flagrant example of Communist sympathizing to the McCarthy committee, it was funny," Smith writes. "The laughter died quickly however, when McCarthy attacked Harvard for its decision to retain three instructors who had supported the Communist cause in the '30s."

President James Bryant Conant '14 and later Nathan M. Pusey '28 gave McCarthy little ground. While the administration forbade the hiring of current Communists, it refused to discriminate based on past association with the Communist Party.

Students, too, benefited from the University's liberalism. Womack remembers that under state law, pro- fessors had to sign a loyalty oath not to join the Communist Party. "A friend of mine refused to sign it, and the University finally didn't make him," Womack says.

In fact, President Nathan M. Pusey '28 earned an award from the American Civil Liberties Union for what his faculty termed his "serene and quiet courage" in the face of McCarthyism.

Nevertheless, Harvard bent somewhat under the pressure of public opinion and a faculty that, according to a Crimson poll of the time, opposed Harvard's employment of known communists by a 2-1 margin.

Many suspected the administration of denying tenure to several professors on the basis of their ties to the Communist Party, says Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53.

"The University's policies were pretty clear, though not everything was overt," Mansfield says.

'60s Rebound

Marxist thought rebounded in the late 1960s as flower children and disenchanted youth sought a new ideology. "People turned to Marx because it offered a kind of coherence that rivaled mainstream economics yet was fundamentally different," says Barker Professor of Economics Stephen A. Marglin '59.

During his years of activism in the '60s, Marglin says he demonstrated in Boston and then suffered the consequences: several hours in the city jail. "The police were very gentle, but they incorrectly picked me out as some kind of leader because I was a few years older than the students," Marglin says.

Since the mid-1970s, campus Marxism has been on the decline, and the demise of the Soviet Union dealt an especially harsh blow. Professor of History Mark A. Kishlansky, who comments on Marxist interpretations of English history, says: "The failure of the regimes that were Marxist-inspired has made it a much more difficult sell."

A Revival?

If there's going to be a revival of Marxism at Harvard, it won't be in economics. Instead, Marxist interpretations of history are popping up in progressive and radical movements like feminism and multiculturalism.

"From the point of view of political philosophy, Marx was the first to argue that sex roles are meaningless," Mansfield says.

Purdy argues that Marx's value as a philosopher extends far beyond his economic critiques. "Marx was a great humanist," he says. "The fundamental Marxian idea is that the structure of society has robbed us of some sort of human potential or essence."

It's this dehumanization of individuals that many movements of the '90s seek to combat. Feltman says it is these types of radical social and cultural critiques that fill the pages of Perspective.

But writing is usually as far as '90s Marxism goes. While students and faculty at Harvard are happy to discuss Marxist ideas in the dining hall or in academic journals, they are far less likely to be attending demonstrations or contributing to revolutionary organizations.

The reluctant stance of "parlor-pinks" toward Marxism is "deeply ironic," Purdy says.

"Marx said that philosophers have hitherto tried to understand the world; now they must try to change it," Purdy says.

Harvard's socialists of today are interested in change, but most pursue it through established politics, not revolution.

"There's a tendency for liberals to pursue more moderate policies," says Joshua A. Feltman '95, president of Perspective. He says Bill Clinton's crusade for universal health care is an example of seeking socialist goals through moderate means.

Feltman's personal views are typical. He considers himself a Marxist in his social criticism, but says he doesn't "advocate social revolution in the Marxian sense."

To Marx, however, reform is a completely unacceptable alternative to revolution. Reformers, he argues in The Communist Manifesto, "deaden the class struggle and reconcile the class antagonisms" by making the working class satisfied with the existing order.

Cambridge

Most at Harvard have rejected this literal interpretation of Marxism, but small pockets of hard-core Marxists remain in the Cambridge area.

Rachel Adler, a volunteer at Revolution Books and a supporter of the Revolutionary Communist Party, distinguishes her views from the "mainstream" socialism that Feltman supports.

"Where we're coming from is a fundamental critique of capitalism," Adler says. "The only thing that's going to push society forward is revolution."

To Adler, electing "reform" candidates to government is largely futile. "The fundamental problems in this country aren't going to be solved through politics," she says.

She says the goal of Revolution Books is to bring revolutionary politics into the Boston area, but she denies any kind of grand conspiratorial scheme. Instead, she says her organization keeps an eye out for pockets of revolutionary activity.

"We did lots of stuff to support the 'L.A. rebellion,'" she says, referring to the outbreak of violence after the Rodney King verdict in 1992.

But she says that support for Revolutionary Communist Party isn't exactly pouring in. Revolutionary sentiment, she says, "largely depends on where the youth is."

Adler says she and other volunteers were greeted heroically at an information table they sponsored this summer at the Woodstock '94 concert, but interest from the general public is much rarer.

Adler and some Harvard students say it's sometimes hard holding Marxist ideas. "It's a contentious position," Adler says.

Feltman agrees. "I get a razzing from everyone from my grandfather to my friends," he says. "I don't feel oppressed, but I feel that there's little understanding of liberalism and the capitalist state we live in."

Feltman might be referring to the views of people like G. Brent McGuire '95, a senior council member of the conservative magazine Peninsula. "Socialist ideas are very pervasive at Harvard, but they're not called that by the socialist," he says. "It's a play on words, but the ideas are as socialist as ever. [These ideas] are very dangerous because Harvard is so respected."

While Marxist ideas may raise a few eyebrows here and there, no one seems to care enough to actively or systematically purge Marxist thought.

"The University never suggested in any way that it cared what I thought politically," Womack says. "It's sort of a non-issue" among faculty.

"Frankly, no one's afraid of Marx now," Purdy says. "You could raise the red flag over Thayer and it wouldn't particularly ruffle any feathers."

Womack says he remembers incident "about 10 years ago, when William Buckley wrote an article saying that Harvard let very dangerous people on the faculty, namely me."

The article caused a stir, says Womack, when "people began to sell their 10 shares of IBM because IBM gave money to Harvard. [President] Bok got some mail about it, but he wrote me a nice note."

"As far as I can tell, I don't think I've caused very much of a problem," he adds.

One hundred forty six years after the publishing of The Communist Manifesto, Marxism doesn't seem about to sweep the world like it did earlier this century. At the same time, it's not about to go away.

"At some levels, Marxism is embedded in the way we talk about things," Womack says. "At other levels, it's about as respectable as astrology."Crimson File Photo

In fact, President Nathan M. Pusey '28 earned an award from the American Civil Liberties Union for what his faculty termed his "serene and quiet courage" in the face of McCarthyism.

Nevertheless, Harvard bent somewhat under the pressure of public opinion and a faculty that, according to a Crimson poll of the time, opposed Harvard's employment of known communists by a 2-1 margin.

Many suspected the administration of denying tenure to several professors on the basis of their ties to the Communist Party, says Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53.

"The University's policies were pretty clear, though not everything was overt," Mansfield says.

'60s Rebound

Marxist thought rebounded in the late 1960s as flower children and disenchanted youth sought a new ideology. "People turned to Marx because it offered a kind of coherence that rivaled mainstream economics yet was fundamentally different," says Barker Professor of Economics Stephen A. Marglin '59.

During his years of activism in the '60s, Marglin says he demonstrated in Boston and then suffered the consequences: several hours in the city jail. "The police were very gentle, but they incorrectly picked me out as some kind of leader because I was a few years older than the students," Marglin says.

Since the mid-1970s, campus Marxism has been on the decline, and the demise of the Soviet Union dealt an especially harsh blow. Professor of History Mark A. Kishlansky, who comments on Marxist interpretations of English history, says: "The failure of the regimes that were Marxist-inspired has made it a much more difficult sell."

A Revival?

If there's going to be a revival of Marxism at Harvard, it won't be in economics. Instead, Marxist interpretations of history are popping up in progressive and radical movements like feminism and multiculturalism.

"From the point of view of political philosophy, Marx was the first to argue that sex roles are meaningless," Mansfield says.

Purdy argues that Marx's value as a philosopher extends far beyond his economic critiques. "Marx was a great humanist," he says. "The fundamental Marxian idea is that the structure of society has robbed us of some sort of human potential or essence."

It's this dehumanization of individuals that many movements of the '90s seek to combat. Feltman says it is these types of radical social and cultural critiques that fill the pages of Perspective.

But writing is usually as far as '90s Marxism goes. While students and faculty at Harvard are happy to discuss Marxist ideas in the dining hall or in academic journals, they are far less likely to be attending demonstrations or contributing to revolutionary organizations.

The reluctant stance of "parlor-pinks" toward Marxism is "deeply ironic," Purdy says.

"Marx said that philosophers have hitherto tried to understand the world; now they must try to change it," Purdy says.

Harvard's socialists of today are interested in change, but most pursue it through established politics, not revolution.

"There's a tendency for liberals to pursue more moderate policies," says Joshua A. Feltman '95, president of Perspective. He says Bill Clinton's crusade for universal health care is an example of seeking socialist goals through moderate means.

Feltman's personal views are typical. He considers himself a Marxist in his social criticism, but says he doesn't "advocate social revolution in the Marxian sense."

To Marx, however, reform is a completely unacceptable alternative to revolution. Reformers, he argues in The Communist Manifesto, "deaden the class struggle and reconcile the class antagonisms" by making the working class satisfied with the existing order.

Cambridge

Most at Harvard have rejected this literal interpretation of Marxism, but small pockets of hard-core Marxists remain in the Cambridge area.

Rachel Adler, a volunteer at Revolution Books and a supporter of the Revolutionary Communist Party, distinguishes her views from the "mainstream" socialism that Feltman supports.

"Where we're coming from is a fundamental critique of capitalism," Adler says. "The only thing that's going to push society forward is revolution."

To Adler, electing "reform" candidates to government is largely futile. "The fundamental problems in this country aren't going to be solved through politics," she says.

She says the goal of Revolution Books is to bring revolutionary politics into the Boston area, but she denies any kind of grand conspiratorial scheme. Instead, she says her organization keeps an eye out for pockets of revolutionary activity.

"We did lots of stuff to support the 'L.A. rebellion,'" she says, referring to the outbreak of violence after the Rodney King verdict in 1992.

But she says that support for Revolutionary Communist Party isn't exactly pouring in. Revolutionary sentiment, she says, "largely depends on where the youth is."

Adler says she and other volunteers were greeted heroically at an information table they sponsored this summer at the Woodstock '94 concert, but interest from the general public is much rarer.

Adler and some Harvard students say it's sometimes hard holding Marxist ideas. "It's a contentious position," Adler says.

Feltman agrees. "I get a razzing from everyone from my grandfather to my friends," he says. "I don't feel oppressed, but I feel that there's little understanding of liberalism and the capitalist state we live in."

Feltman might be referring to the views of people like G. Brent McGuire '95, a senior council member of the conservative magazine Peninsula. "Socialist ideas are very pervasive at Harvard, but they're not called that by the socialist," he says. "It's a play on words, but the ideas are as socialist as ever. [These ideas] are very dangerous because Harvard is so respected."

While Marxist ideas may raise a few eyebrows here and there, no one seems to care enough to actively or systematically purge Marxist thought.

"The University never suggested in any way that it cared what I thought politically," Womack says. "It's sort of a non-issue" among faculty.

"Frankly, no one's afraid of Marx now," Purdy says. "You could raise the red flag over Thayer and it wouldn't particularly ruffle any feathers."

Womack says he remembers incident "about 10 years ago, when William Buckley wrote an article saying that Harvard let very dangerous people on the faculty, namely me."

The article caused a stir, says Womack, when "people began to sell their 10 shares of IBM because IBM gave money to Harvard. [President] Bok got some mail about it, but he wrote me a nice note."

"As far as I can tell, I don't think I've caused very much of a problem," he adds.

One hundred forty six years after the publishing of The Communist Manifesto, Marxism doesn't seem about to sweep the world like it did earlier this century. At the same time, it's not about to go away.

"At some levels, Marxism is embedded in the way we talk about things," Womack says. "At other levels, it's about as respectable as astrology."Crimson File Photo