Talk:Eric Foner

Eric Foner political categorization

I would argue that Foner deserves to be labeled in the communist category. I would say so for several reasons. First, his dad and uncle were both members of the CPUSA, and we already know Foner is pretty progressive, as the information on his main page says. Although this does not necessarily suggest he is a communist, him being a progressive suggests that the apple likely didn't fall far from the tree. I think that itself is good evidence he technically has communist ties. Second, although he may have gotten a thing or two right about Reconstruction here or there, we must understand people like Foner, Zinn, and McPherson have a different view of Reconstruction than we do. While we view Reconstruction as the Republican Party trying to promote civil rights and accomplish Hamiltonian goals that had failed to be accomplished ever since Thomas Jefferson beat John Adams in 1800, Foner and his allies see it as a refounding of America, hence why he called it an "unfinished revolution". While he may have gotten a couple of things right about civil service reform and the free market, he also sees Reconstruction as sort of a Marxist revolution, even though it wasn't really and I certainly would have supported it had I been alive then. To people like Foner, America was founded as a systemically pro-slavery country in 1776, and the Constitution, which was ratified in 1789, is too. They see the Reconstruction Amendments and the process of Reconstruction as making a new constitution and a new America, one that was very progressive and that was supposed to be communist. Hence, to them Reconstruction is an unfinished revolution as we need to finish the job of making America fully progressive and woke. Obviously this is just very bad history and no one should agree with it, Reconstruction wasn't really any of these things, but that is how I would argue people like Foner see it. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 00:29, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

[EC] Notwithstanding his intentions, Foner's writings on Reconstruction have been highly beneficial as citations by conservatives to point the indisputable historical link between the Democratic Party and the Ku Klux Klan. Also, on the issue of Communism, Foner pointed out that conservative Robert A. Taft stood up for the rights of Japanese Americans during World War II while the Communist Party did not. His writings, while containing possible omissions (I believe he portrayed George H. Pendleton out-of-context as racially tolerant due to Pendleton's expedient alliance with the New Departure while making no mention of the Ohio Copperhead's racist history), can still be of great use. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Monday, 00:34, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

I agree certain things of his can used for good 100%, though I would argue that that is the case for many people on both the right and left. My main argument is that he has relatives who were communists whose political views do not seem to differ too much from his and I would argue he has his own interpretation of Reconstruction that tries to fit it into sort of a bourgeoisie/proletariat narrative, so I feel that the communism template is good to describe him, even if we may not put him in the communist category. He certainly sounds like a guy Joseph McCarthy would have wanted investigated in the 50s, and if that is the case I think you can make the argument he deserves the template. He also has written papers on why communism and socialism didn't succeed in the US, and says in Why There Is No Socialism that the failure of those movements to merge with the IWW was the "tragedy" of those years. So while he has made some good contributions over the years that can be cited for good use, he still is part of the far left in a way. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 01:22, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

Hold up, progressive is correlated to Communist? That's funny, because I thought the Progressive Movement at its inception was fiercely anti-Communist; after all, it was a leftist civil war, competing for the same voter bases. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Monday, 00:36, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

Honestly you could make the argument the Progressive Movement was never anti-communist to begin with with people like Henry Wallace. When Woodrow Wilson tried to arrest anti-WWI protestors who were supposedly "radicals" through the Sedition Act of 1918, you could make the argument he ironically did more to bring America closer to communism by giving the central government more power and allowing it to take away the right to free speech, something that is a common phenomenon in communist countries after all. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 01:27, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

That's ignoring the larger picture with selective cherry-picking. Who instigated the First Red Scare? Progressives. (the "Old Guard" conservatives opposed rabid persecutions of anarchists and Communists at the time because of the massive civil liberty violations) Into the 1920s and 30s, the same progressives who fought for labor rights, a graduated income tax, public power, etc. simultaneously were the most virulently anti-Bolshevik, i.e. Southern Democrats and the Second KKK. At one point, a black member of the Indiana Socialist Party referred to the Klan as "working for the things that the Socialist party want but cannot get." Progressives vs. socialists/Communists was essentially like Trotskyism vs. Stalinism, two rivaling leftist factions competing for the same constituency.

See, the problem with your usage of "progressive" in the initial complaint above is that you employ it in the very context and format modern-day leftist propagandists use it; You create a sense of synonymy between "communist" and "progressive" with zero mention of the long rivaling history between the two. A bit hypocritical on your part to bash Foner as a left-wing propagandist while quietly employing such deception yourself, eh? —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Monday, 10:51, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

I do not see why it is deception or why it really matters. Yes, the progressives did indeed perhaps take a part in the First Red Scare through things like the Palmer Raids, and this likely was because they had an inherently big government philosophy that disregarded the importance of civil liberties during the time. While it is interesting that you bring up the Troyskyite-Stalinist comparison, I would argue that mentioning the Progressive Movement is ultimately irrelevant in the context of this conversation, however. Our job is to decipher whether Eric Foner's political inclinations warrant the communist template regardless of whether or not his writings have been helpful, which I would argue they do because of his communist ties and because in Why There is No Socialism he reveals himself to be a commiesymp. If it is better for me to use a label other than progressive to describe Foner, (like leftist or left-winger) I am fine with that, though I don't really understand why we need to bring up the Progressive Era here. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 13:07, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

Aha, but you see, you said, and I quote, "Although this does not necessarily suggest he is a communist, him being a progressive suggests that the apple likely didn't fall far from the tree." So you deliberately used "progressive" and "communist" as synonymous terms, which fits the framework of progressivism as modern-day leftists define it as opposed to the historical definition which neo-Marxists cower from. The modern concept of "progressivism" with the onset of the New Left (or around that time) attempts to define it around "multiculturalism," while the progressivism of the 1910s/20s was in bed with virulent immigration restrictionists, hardline eugenicists, white supremacists, etc. So in your attempt to label Foner as a Communist/comsymp, you discredited yourself as a promulgator of leftist agitprop. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Monday, 13:38, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

Now I understand what you are saying, that makes more sense. Saying Foner is a part of the New Left would make more sense. I shall use that terminology instead to describe his views. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 13:52, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

"New Left" would certainly be more accurate than "progressive." —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Monday, 14:00, May 15, 2023 (EDT)