As the son of Stalinists myself, I really appreciate this nuanced consideration of the great W.E.B. Du Bois’s complex — and sometimes contradictory — attitudes toward elitism and the role of vanguards. It is a relief to acknowledge the blind spots of even the most brilliant of our thinkers. The truth can hurt more than an idealization, but (I believe) it allows us the most capacious understanding of what it means to be human.
this is wild and incredibly approachable as someone not super familiar with the existing history. As a disabled person I gotta say it's wild to me how eugenecist these ideas seem, too (eugenics ideology was very present in the US during his life, and integral to much racism). the idea that a group of people, almost or even at a biological level, could be considered to be tainting "progress" with their existence / resistance / etc... or somehow not deserving of autonomy / biologically unqualified to know ~whats good for them~. yeah. I was particularly struck by the contamination comment and the conflation of so considered Best people with a very meritocracy idea of intelligence in that regard and wonder if anyone has written about that possible influence on his ideas as well... idk. this was fascinating and horrifying and very nuanced. well done. I feel like I have just feasted on words.
I appreciate this essay; it's an interesting discussion of W.E.B Du Bois and the first thing that I think of is that a lot of people supported Stalin. It's worth paying attention to the specific reasons for Du Bois (in part because he is such an important intellectual), but I remember reading about this biography of Paul Robeson, for example, which talks about both his support for Stalin and how it broke him to come to terms with it: https://sydneyreviewofbooks.com/review/no-way-but-this-jeff-sparrow-review/
there were definitely a lot of people on the left who supported stalin. Du Bois was unusual in how long he continued his support though (his eulogy for Stalin is...pretty unpleasant reading.)
I do think it's worth tracking that thread of his thought (as you've done).
The other thing I sometimes remind myself is that for people who carve an intellectual path for themselves against significant resistance often aren't great at calibrating, "have I maybe gone to far in this case . . .?"
Growing up in the 50s and 60s, we heard about “starving children in China, so eat your vegetables“.
But we had no historical context for this admonition, which was based on the Lysenko tragedy.
Decades later, I read about Stalin’s appointment of Trofim Lysenko to be head of agriculture in Russia.
While he was a biologist and an agronomist, he was favored for his position because of his lower class roots.
Thus, when his anti-genetic theories that greater and faster crop yields were possible in a single season, or that Wheat could be grown to produce rye seeds, did not work, no one could admit it without crossing Stalin; many Mendelian geneticists were persecuted and some killed.
The mass starvation happened first in Russia and then in China, which also assumed Lysenko must still know what he was talking about.
As the son of Stalinists myself, I really appreciate this nuanced consideration of the great W.E.B. Du Bois’s complex — and sometimes contradictory — attitudes toward elitism and the role of vanguards. It is a relief to acknowledge the blind spots of even the most brilliant of our thinkers. The truth can hurt more than an idealization, but (I believe) it allows us the most capacious understanding of what it means to be human.
thanks! and thank you for reading; it's a long piece!
this is wild and incredibly approachable as someone not super familiar with the existing history. As a disabled person I gotta say it's wild to me how eugenecist these ideas seem, too (eugenics ideology was very present in the US during his life, and integral to much racism). the idea that a group of people, almost or even at a biological level, could be considered to be tainting "progress" with their existence / resistance / etc... or somehow not deserving of autonomy / biologically unqualified to know ~whats good for them~. yeah. I was particularly struck by the contamination comment and the conflation of so considered Best people with a very meritocracy idea of intelligence in that regard and wonder if anyone has written about that possible influence on his ideas as well... idk. this was fascinating and horrifying and very nuanced. well done. I feel like I have just feasted on words.
thanks!
eugenics was everywhere in progressive circles in the early 20th century, so it would make sense for it to have influenced him, if only roundabout.
I appreciate this essay; it's an interesting discussion of W.E.B Du Bois and the first thing that I think of is that a lot of people supported Stalin. It's worth paying attention to the specific reasons for Du Bois (in part because he is such an important intellectual), but I remember reading about this biography of Paul Robeson, for example, which talks about both his support for Stalin and how it broke him to come to terms with it: https://sydneyreviewofbooks.com/review/no-way-but-this-jeff-sparrow-review/
there were definitely a lot of people on the left who supported stalin. Du Bois was unusual in how long he continued his support though (his eulogy for Stalin is...pretty unpleasant reading.)
I do think it's worth tracking that thread of his thought (as you've done).
The other thing I sometimes remind myself is that for people who carve an intellectual path for themselves against significant resistance often aren't great at calibrating, "have I maybe gone to far in this case . . .?"
Growing up in the 50s and 60s, we heard about “starving children in China, so eat your vegetables“.
But we had no historical context for this admonition, which was based on the Lysenko tragedy.
Decades later, I read about Stalin’s appointment of Trofim Lysenko to be head of agriculture in Russia.
While he was a biologist and an agronomist, he was favored for his position because of his lower class roots.
Thus, when his anti-genetic theories that greater and faster crop yields were possible in a single season, or that Wheat could be grown to produce rye seeds, did not work, no one could admit it without crossing Stalin; many Mendelian geneticists were persecuted and some killed.
The mass starvation happened first in Russia and then in China, which also assumed Lysenko must still know what he was talking about.
Thanks for this reminder.