FPR readers will be interested in both (1) K.R. Bolton’s traditionalist Conservative critique of Marx and Ideological-Capitalism and (2) Lee Trepanier’s examination of the use of history in Hawthorne. Both essays can be found in ANAMNESIS, A Journal for the Study of Tradition, Place, and ‘Things Divine.’ Bolton’s critique demonstrates the radically anti-traditionalist motives and aims of Marx, including the many ways he admires how Capitalism destroys tradition and the organic elements of society. Trepanier’s analysis considers how Hawthorne’s development of the allegorical romance genre was a successful attempt to consider timeless “fundamental questions of human nature.” Both essays are well crafted and insightful, and I invite curious readers to enjoy them.
Peter Daniel Haworth
My name is Peter Haworth, and I am an independent scholar living in Phoenix, Arizona. I received my Ph.D. in Government from Georgetown University in 2008, and I am currently working on various writing projects in American Political Thought. My interests include American Political Development, Traditionalist Thought, Constitutional Law, Southern Americana, Virtue Ethics, Natural Law, Political Theology, and many other topics within the history of political theory. With me in Phoenix is my darling wife, Mrs. Elizabeth Puckett Haworth of Columbus, Mississippi and our son, Peter Randolph Augustine Haworth. My hobbies include voracious reading, minimal gun collecting, and dreaming about our future farm that might be located somewhere in beautiful Mississippi.
All author posts
1 comment
JA
The Bolton piece on Marx was quite enjoyable. For a parallel anthropological perspective, David Graeber makes a similar critique of Marx in “Turning Modes of Production Inside Out: Or, Why Capitalism is a Transformation of Slavery.” He argues that, like the capitalism of his day, Marx treats material production as an abstraction of value unconnected to the production of flourishing persons. This abstraction is a modern conceit that the ancients (and non-Western peoples) would consider the subordination of moral and human ends to instrumentality–an arrangement that he rejects, siding with the ancients over the moderns.
Comments are closed.