Anointed Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris isn’t just the daughter of a Jamacian, she’s the daughter of a Marxist professor.
If Kamala’s origin stories are truly critical in understanding who she is today, we ought to consider briefly the role of her father, Donald J. Harris, a Marxist economist and Stanford professor emeritus.
Donald’s interesting take on economic theory is best laid out in his early foreword to a 1972 reprint of Nikolai Bukharin’s Economic Theory of the Leisure Class. It’s a kind of beginner’s guide to the orthodox left view of “bourgeois economics” as contrasted with the “science” of Marxist analysis.
If the Jeopardy answer is “This thinker greatly influenced modern western economic thinking,” then “Who is Nikolai Bukharin?” is not going to put any points on the board.
Bukharin’s Economic Theory is a classic of the oeuvre, in this instance, a Marxian angels-dancing-on-pinheads critique of the then-emerging economic notion of “marginal theory.” In classical (what Donald sometimes also calls “bourgeois”) economics, marginal theory examines how the addition or reduction of a single unit of a good or service affects consumer decisions: To a man dying of thirst, the first bottle of water is likely worth more than the second — and in that moment, to that man, both may be worth everything else he owns.
But don’t worry overmuch about the details of marginal theory, Donald tells us: “They are matters of lesser importance. What is crucial is [and here he begins quoting Bukharin] ‘the point of departure of the . . . theory, its ignoring the social-historical character of economic phenomena.’”
See, to your typical Marxist, free-market economic theory always obscures — it “ignores” — what’s really real, which is class conflict, Donald says.
It wasn’t always this way with the bourgeois theorists, he says:
In the early phase of capitalist development, bourgeois political economy, by championing the interests of the emerging bourgeoisie in its struggle against the pre-existing dominant class, performs a radical scientific role in exposing the nature of commodity-producing precapitalist society. In the later phase of capitalism, however, bourgeois political economy turns to justification of the system in which the bourgeoisie has become ascendant and is threatened by the growing workers’ movement. It thereby loses its scientific role, a role which is to be taken by Marxian political economy rooted in the interests of the working class.
In that single passage, you’ve got a brief overview of Marxism — its sense that free-market theory, however right it was as a critique of feudalism, is mere propaganda designed not to clarify but to mask the oppression of working people. That free-market economic theory therefore helps justify the persistence of a vestigial/parasitic bourgeoisie, which, having created the industrial system that produces so much abundance, has generated a new problem — the “crisis of overproduction,” Marx and Engels called it — a problem that can be solved only by identifying new foreign markets, juicing consumer demand through advertising, and smoke-and-mirrors ideas like “marginal theory” that help in “the formation of demand.”
You also get a sense of what Marxists mean by “science”: Not a system by which theories are tested to determine verifiable truths about the world, but a word that means “anything that furthers the goal of Marxist revolution.” Remember this anytime someone on the left declares that “the science is settled.”
In a biographical note in the concluding paragraphs, Harris mentions briefly where Bukharin’s work led the once-prominent Soviet thinker: He worked closely with Lenin during the October Revolution, was a member of the Politburo by 1919, “assumed many high-profile offices in the Party,” and “came to exercise great influence within the Party and the Comintern,” Donald writes. Then, in a single, dry sentence, he accounts for Bukharin’s end. There’s no sense of irony here, no sense even that he shares the likely confusion of his readers: “Under Stalin’s regime, . . . he was among those who were arrested and brought to trial on charges of treason and he was executed on March 15, 1938.” Bukharin, 49 at the time of his murder, may have seemed old enough to Donald, just 34 at the time of his writing.
Bukharin shared the same fate as fellow “old Bolshevik” comrades Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev: Confessing his sins in a show trial, then being lined up against a wall as a potential threat to Stalin. As Wikipedia puts it: “Before the trial, Zinoviev and Kamenev had agreed to plead guilty to the false charges on the condition that they not be executed, a condition that Stalin accepted, stating ‘that goes without saying’. A few hours after their conviction, Stalin ordered their execution that night” in 1936. The wages of communism are a bullet in the head.
Donald Harris’s entire opus innocently ascribes to Marxian economics a success it would never achieve and is blind to the terror his work implied. In 1966, even as he was wrapping up his dissertation, he made time to review a University of California Press book on Brazil’s 1960s troubles with central planning. It’s a book that “deserves far greater attention than it has apparently received to date,” he writes, and it’s good because it brings “to the problem a perspective sufficiently broad to include its sociopolitical and historical as well as economic dimensions” — which is to say that he approves of the author’s method of inquiry — “its Hegelian origins, and the relevance of its Marxian adaptation to the analysis of development in advanced as well as in underdeveloped economies.” It’s “a useful ‘simplifying hypothesis,’” he calls it, “useful” presumably because it helps explain away the failure of central planners as a feature of the international revolutionary class struggle. Let’s underscore “simplifying” as a theme running through the rest of his life’s work. In his 1972 essay “Feasible Growth with Specificity of Capital and Surplus Labor,” Donald promises (no kidding) to help central planners in emerging economies draw best practices from “certain aspects of Soviet experience during the period of the First Five-Year Plan”). He’s like this all the way through 2022’s “Capital, Technology, and Time” — committed to a fantasy and, even here, just two years ago, at age 82, still celebrating the superpower that allows him to (in his words) “expose a fundamental lacuna in the traditional neoclassical narrative and supporting theory related to the dual problems of agency and dynamics of the transition process involved in analysis of capital accumulation and technological change.”
* * *
Donald’s ability to turn this theology into a marketable product — a Stanford career! — is a fascinating feature of postmodern capitalism as it applies to academia. Born in Jamaica in 1938, Donald earned his bachelor’s degree from London University in 1960 and went immediately to work on a Ph.D. in economics at the University of California, Berkeley. There, at a civil-rights protest, he met Indian-born Shyamala Gopalan, a graduate student of nutrition and endocrinology. They married in 1963, and Kamala was born the next year.
This radical couple’s acting out bourgeois rituals — marriage, housekeeping, a child, graduate degrees — might seem remarkably ironic. But Berkeley was just warming to its reputation for campus chaos. The year of Kamala’s birth was also the year of Mario Savio’s stirring, brief address to protesters gathered outside Berkeley’s Sproul Hall. That speech now is rightly considered pivotal to the campus radicalism that would follow. And it remains timely: In just a few words, Savio characterized the academic project in ways that anyone today might instantly grasp with both hands. A university is a kind of factory, Savio declared, a mass-production system in which “the faculty are a bunch of employees, and we’re the raw material!”
But we’re a bunch of raw material that don’t mean to have any process upon us, don’t mean to be made into any product, don’t mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We’re human beings!
And then came the lines remembered by some of us who grew up with Savio’s voice still echoing across our California campuses more than a decade later:
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!
That’s where Kamala Harris was born.
For Marxists, the real crime isn’t the operation of the machine, but the fact that they’re not the ones controlling the gears and levers of the machine.
But remember that Kamala Harris isn’t the only 2020 Democratic presidential contender/high profile member of the Biden Administration whose father delved into the intellectual arcania of prominent 20th century communist theorists: The father of incompetent Biden Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg was America’s foremost scholar of Italian Communist theorist Antonio Gramsci.
The father of Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was a Marxist professor who spoke fondly of the Communist Manifesto and dedicated a significant portion of his academic career to the work of Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci, an associate of Vladimir Lenin.
Joseph Buttigieg, who died in January at the age of 71, immigrated to the U.S. in the 1970s from Malta and in 1980 joined the University of Notre Dame faculty, where he taught modern European literature and literary theory. He supported an updated version of Marxism that jettisoned some of Marx and Engel’s more doctrinaire theories, though he was undoubtedly Marxist.
He was an adviser to Rethinking Marxism, an academic journal that published articles “that seek to discuss, elaborate, and/or extend Marxian theory,” and a member of the editorial collective of Boundary 2, a journal of postmodern theory, literature, and culture. He spoke at many Rethinking Marxism conferences and other gatherings of prominent Marxists.
In a 2000 paper for Rethinking Marxism critical of the approach of Human Rights Watch, Buttigieg, along with two other authors, refers to “the Marxist project to which we subscribe.”
In 1998, he wrote in an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education about an event in New York City celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Manifesto. He also participated in the event.
“If The Communist Manifesto was meant to liberate the proletariat, the Manifesto itself in recent years needed liberating from Marxism’s narrow post-Cold War orthodoxies and exclusive cadres. It has been freed,” he wrote.
“After a musical interlude, seven people read different portions of the Manifesto. Listening to it read, one could not help but be struck by the poignancy of its prose,” he wrote. The readers “had implicitly warned even us faithful to guard against conferring upon it the status of Scripture, a repository of doctrinal verities.”
“Equity, environmental consciousness, and racial justice are surely some of the ingredients of a healthy Marxism. Indeed, Marxism’s greatest appeal — undiminished by the collapse of Communist edifices — is the imbalances produced by other sociopolitical governing structures,” Buttigieg wrote.
Paul Kengor, a professor at Grove City College and an expert in communism and progressivism, said Buttigieg was among a group of leftist professors who focused on injecting Marxism into the wider culture.
“They’re part of a wider international community of Marxist theorists and academicians with a particular devotion to the writings of the late Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, who died over 80 years ago. Gramsci was all about applying Marxist theory to culture and cultural institutions — what is often referred to as a ‘long march through the institutions,’ such as film, media, and especially education,” Kengor told the Washington Examiner.
Pete Buttigieg, an only child, shared a close relationship with his father.
Snip
The elder Buttigieg was best known as one of the world’s leading scholars of Gramsci.
Gramsci thought cultural change was critical to dismantling capitalism. Nevertheless, although critical of certain aspects of Bolshevism, Gramsci endorsed Vladimir Lenin’s “maximalist” politics and identified within the Leninist faction of the Italian communists. He went to Moscow in 1922 as the official representative of the Italian Communist Party and returned home to lead the resistance against Italy’s Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, on the orders of Lenin, while his new wife and children stayed in the USSR.
Those efforts landed Gramsci in an Italian prison, where he lived much of his brief life, which ended in 1937 at the age of 46. Yet his time behind bars was also some of his most prolific, leading to a collection of essays called the Prison Notebooks. Buttigieg completed the authoritative English translation of Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks, and his articles on Gramsci have been translated into five languages.
Buttigieg was a founding member and president of the International Gramsci Society, an organization that aims to “facilitate communication and the exchange of information among the very large number of individuals from all over the world who are interested in Antonio Gramsci’s life and work and in the presence of his thought in contemporary culture.”
Democrats swear up and down they’re not communists, yet the odds against two high members of the Biden Administration both being red diaper babies sired by communist professors who dedicated their life to prominent 20th century communist theorists seems astronomically high. How many hardcore Marxist professors can there be at American universities? How do two of their offspring get serious financial backing as presidential candidates and end up in the same Administration?
Of course, the odds seem a lot more understandable when you remember the “dreams” Barack Obama inherited from his father. “In 1965, Obama [Sr.] published a paper entitled ‘Problems Facing Our Socialism’ in the East Africa Journal, harshly criticizing the blueprint for national planning, ‘African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya’, developed by Tom Mboya’s Ministry of Economic Planning and Development. Obama considered the document to be not adequately socialist and African.”
Indeed.
Clearly the modern, social justice-infected, race-conscious, socialist friendly Democratic Party has been recast in Barack Obama (Jr.)’s image.
The engineered ascension of red diaper baby Kamala Harris to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States of America without a single vote being cast in her favor is no accident.