Transcribe
Translate
Vanguard Boojum, v. 1, issue 1
19
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Vanguard Boojum page seventeen (En Passant - continued) merican in uniform was no more or less "deserving" of death than a Japanese out of uniform. This brings the issue down to a matter of personal preference. I therefore "prefer" the familiar "evil" of American Imperialism, with which I can come to terms or oppose with understanding as I choose. The effects of this "preferred evil" may be similar to the "rejected evil" but the workings are slightly different, and it is in these minutae that the individual stands, sits, falls or is chopped down. Likewise, I "prefer" the familiar "Aerican in uniform" to the unfamiliar "Japanese out of uniform" simply because I can talk American. The dialect, I grant you, is a procedural method, but it was "running the show" some centuries before Marx grew carbuncles. I suspect you have been confusing "dialectics" with "Dialectical Materialism" (the Marxist's procedural method which is a particular adaptation and evolution of "dialectics"); the two terms are not [underlined] interchangeable, but I have used the term "dialectis" to cover everything we know of today which includes [underlined] any form of "dialectics" (thus including DM), and it is thus my sentence "Dialectics may be outdated, but the're still running the show" should be read. (And the Marxian Vaudeville is still an effective and affecting part of the show, like it or not!) The cry over the absence ot Marxist texts at the end of "SFOHR" is not to be wondered at, since virtually every other source to which any reference is made is carefully documented. The article was careful, precise, and devoid of emotional rhetoric until bang! up popped a number of highly emotional and rhetorical remarks about the Marxists. (The technique of "disposing" of Marxism by bright remarks about its proponents is well-worn.) We turn to the back of the article and find an impressive list of references, none of which adequately account for these statements -- which makes them doublt suspect. (You don't, for example, cite Marxist comments upon Spengler; you cite Spengler himself.) The reader is forced to assume that (a) perhaps this was just a burst of prejudice and the remarks don't really belong in the article, or (b) perhaps you forgot to list actual Marxist sources, or (c) in the single instance of Marxism you have been content to rest upon the authority of non-Marxists, instead of going to the original source, or (d) this is just another "pink tea" diatribe designed to give the appearance of refuting Marxism, while actually telling nothing at all about it. Since the latter method is one which almost any person familiar with Marxist and anti-Marxist writing and argument can repeat such phrases as you used by heart, from having seen or heard them from the year 1, this leads to the suspicion which some have cast upon the entire article and its purpose. I myself had hoped, from the way you had handled the earlier sections, you would use the occasion to through some new light and make valid criticisms of Marxism -- thus my own disappointment in seeing only series of phrases which might as well have been lifted bodily from some pseduo-intellectual department in the Hearst dailies, with the proper words set in capital letters, Thus the reaction which you have found so irritating. I must confess misinformation on the subject of Oldes, however you criticism is not entirely accurate, as I didn't attribute the Lyric [underlined] there at all. My source was Ebenezer Old, journeyman printer and pamphleteer of the latter 18th century, who indulged in a interesting career of piracy and plagiarism without ever becoming entangled with the law. Thus I was interested to learn whence he'd obtained the "Lyric".
Saving...
prev
next
Vanguard Boojum page seventeen (En Passant - continued) merican in uniform was no more or less "deserving" of death than a Japanese out of uniform. This brings the issue down to a matter of personal preference. I therefore "prefer" the familiar "evil" of American Imperialism, with which I can come to terms or oppose with understanding as I choose. The effects of this "preferred evil" may be similar to the "rejected evil" but the workings are slightly different, and it is in these minutae that the individual stands, sits, falls or is chopped down. Likewise, I "prefer" the familiar "Aerican in uniform" to the unfamiliar "Japanese out of uniform" simply because I can talk American. The dialect, I grant you, is a procedural method, but it was "running the show" some centuries before Marx grew carbuncles. I suspect you have been confusing "dialectics" with "Dialectical Materialism" (the Marxist's procedural method which is a particular adaptation and evolution of "dialectics"); the two terms are not [underlined] interchangeable, but I have used the term "dialectis" to cover everything we know of today which includes [underlined] any form of "dialectics" (thus including DM), and it is thus my sentence "Dialectics may be outdated, but the're still running the show" should be read. (And the Marxian Vaudeville is still an effective and affecting part of the show, like it or not!) The cry over the absence ot Marxist texts at the end of "SFOHR" is not to be wondered at, since virtually every other source to which any reference is made is carefully documented. The article was careful, precise, and devoid of emotional rhetoric until bang! up popped a number of highly emotional and rhetorical remarks about the Marxists. (The technique of "disposing" of Marxism by bright remarks about its proponents is well-worn.) We turn to the back of the article and find an impressive list of references, none of which adequately account for these statements -- which makes them doublt suspect. (You don't, for example, cite Marxist comments upon Spengler; you cite Spengler himself.) The reader is forced to assume that (a) perhaps this was just a burst of prejudice and the remarks don't really belong in the article, or (b) perhaps you forgot to list actual Marxist sources, or (c) in the single instance of Marxism you have been content to rest upon the authority of non-Marxists, instead of going to the original source, or (d) this is just another "pink tea" diatribe designed to give the appearance of refuting Marxism, while actually telling nothing at all about it. Since the latter method is one which almost any person familiar with Marxist and anti-Marxist writing and argument can repeat such phrases as you used by heart, from having seen or heard them from the year 1, this leads to the suspicion which some have cast upon the entire article and its purpose. I myself had hoped, from the way you had handled the earlier sections, you would use the occasion to through some new light and make valid criticisms of Marxism -- thus my own disappointment in seeing only series of phrases which might as well have been lifted bodily from some pseduo-intellectual department in the Hearst dailies, with the proper words set in capital letters, Thus the reaction which you have found so irritating. I must confess misinformation on the subject of Oldes, however you criticism is not entirely accurate, as I didn't attribute the Lyric [underlined] there at all. My source was Ebenezer Old, journeyman printer and pamphleteer of the latter 18th century, who indulged in a interesting career of piracy and plagiarism without ever becoming entangled with the law. Thus I was interested to learn whence he'd obtained the "Lyric".
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
