|
Letters: November 22, 1995
The Once and Future Marx
The Once and Future MarxKarl Marx on the cover of the October 25 paw and the accompanying article by Edward Tenner '65 leave me cold. As a missionary, I witnessed the Marxist program carried out in Ethiopia in 1974-77. Countless people-Christians, Muslims, and others-died, some in conditions too terrible to describe. It was the authentic Marxist salvation showing itself, the monster devouring its own children.We are always told that such experiments weren't real Marxism, but some kind of distortion of the prophet's message. Solzhenitsyn's view is different. My experience in Ethiopia vindicates the rightness of what he said. Reading The Gulag Archipelago, I was astonished to see all that Solzhenitsyn described fulfilled in detail in the "liberation" of Ethiopia. The peasants were organized and sent to die in the desert, just as the Russians were sent to die in Siberia. The lamp of freedom was hidden away. Yet your article on Marx gives barely a sentence to the human consequences of such revolutionary programs. We read only of inequalities and "purges" that can be seen as the necessary "price" for a system that "worked." These words are part of a discourse of escapism and awful abstractions compared to the groans of the dying. Later, in graduate school, I listened to Marxists dealing in these same abstractions while excluding any discussion of the exploded homes of Ethiopian shepherds or the tears of the bereaved. Either these facts weren't theoretical enough, or else they dealt with concerns (for food, drink, and personal freedom) that were delusions of the capitalists, imaginary dreams that needed to be deconstructed by the initiates. The Marxists explained the meaning of real "oppression" and what it would take to achieve "authentic" liberation. But Solzhenitsyn had it right: Marxism died a well-deserved death. Before trying to resurrect that moldering corpse, we need to remember what this Frankenstein was like when it lived. John Mason '66 102422.135@compuserve.com Antioch, Tenn.
I take exception to your publication of Edward Tenner's disinformative, soft-soap laundering of Marx. Paw's editors are showing their political underwear. Why should this attempted rehabilitation be of interest to alumni? Apologists argue that Marx did not create the police states set up by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro, as if there were no causal connection between those states and his pernicious, polemic-ridden theorizing.
It's not surprising to find someone associated with the Princeton faculty trying to defend and rehabilitate Marx. What's surprising is that paw should feature his article so prominently.
Miller SuitSo, Bruce J. Miller '93's suit for injuries arising from his near-electrocution atop the Dinky has come to a close, and Miller's prize-an out-of-court settlement totalling $5.7 million-has been won at last (Notebook, October 11). Words to describe my outrage are better left unprinted. As freshmen in November 1990, my friends and I knew better than to play with electricity while grounded. Of course, we also knew better than to play in traffic. Perhaps the university should install foot bridges over Washington Road, lest a reckless, inebriated student fall in front of a moving vehicle, then sue everyone except the one party responsible-himself.Richard Todd '94 toddrm@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Nashville, Tenn.
Bruce Miller's negligence suit against New Jersey Transit, the university, SAE, and Campus and Cottage clubs was a pathetic abdication of his personal responsibility for his injury. Miller sued others for his irrational decisions, and we taxpayers and contributors to Annual Giving are helping to pay his $5.7 million settlement.
After reading about Miller's settlement, I have two questions. First, if Mr. Miller believes that the university, New Jersey Transit, SAE, and Cottage and Campus clubs bear responsibility for his injuries, why did he and his attorney decide not to sue other parties that contributed to his accident-the electric company, for example, or the alcohol industry? After all, if New Jersey Transit can be held liable for Mr. Miller's accident, despite the fact that he was trespassing and was clearly not using the Dinky for its intended purpose, why shouldn't the companies that produce and promote alcohol also be held accountable for his decision to misuse and abuse their product?
Only recently have disgruntled students begun suing the university and other deep pockets for their own character defects. Does this say something about Princeton's admission policies, or shall we chalk it up to political correctness and a severe surplus of hungry lawyers?
The New CenturyI don't want to start a debate on semantics, but in your article "Princeton Greets the Class of 1999" (Notebook, October 11), the first-year class is incorrectly described as "Princeton's last class to graduate in this century."It is tempting but inaccurate to call January 1, 2000 the beginning of the 21st century. The logic is that the first century encompassed the first 100 years of the Common Era; that is, C.E. 1 to C.E. 100, not C.E. 1 to C.E. 99. The latter would be, of course, a period of 99 years and technically not a century. Just as the first century began on January 1, Year 1 of the Common Era-there was no Year 0-so will the 21st century begin on January 1, 2001. The same logic applies to descriptions of millennia. December 31, 2000 is the last day of the second millennium of the Common Era; January 1, 2001 will be the first day of the third. Adam Gileski '91 adam03@wharton.upenn.edu Philadelphia, Penn.
Alcohol AbuseCarl Wartenburg, a former assistant to several Princeton presidents, and Morris Kinnan, Jr. '50, who both died recently, served with a group of alumni concerned about student alcohol addiction and abuse. The administration took their suggestions only so far. After Mr. Wartenburg's departure to become dean of students at Swarthmore, the alumni found themselves against a silent wall, and the effort collapsed in what many of us saw as the university's sophistry. The problem, of course, continues. Someone will pick up the flag, but these conscientious men and their candor and dedication to students will be missed, and long appreciated.Bob VanWagoner '44 Anna Maria, Fla.
ConceptionIn his criticism of paw's May 10 article about the book Emergency Contraception, Walter Weber '81 is mistaken when he equates conception with the moment "when sperm fertilizes egg" (Letters, September 13). My dictionary gives the relevant definition of conception as "the act of becoming pregnant." If I'm not mistaken, pregnancy does not occur until after implantation of a fertilized egg; fertilization by itself does not constitute pregnancy, and thus it also does not constitute conception as precisely defined.A method of preventing pregnancy by preventing implantation indeed is a contraceptive in that it prevents conception. This additionally highlights the utter dependency of a newly fertilized egg upon the womb; an embryo is not some independent "life form" that "grows up" inside an inert container, nor is it even a semidependent entity that simply gathers food and returns waste. The process is one involving an intimate biochemical conversation between embryo and host, initially encompassing the complete system as a single organism, and only later developing a fetus that can begin to survive on its own. Any woman with morning sickness can attest to the interdependence of the bulk of her body with the portion growing inside the womb. Mr. Weber's confusion is understandable, given his apparent faith that independent life begins at fertilization, but science does not provide so clear a dividing line. Mr. Weber would do well to realize that others have an equally certain "faith" that there is no clear line before which you have "no life" and afterward you have "life," and that a "soul" might simply emerge from a sufficiently developed nervous system rather than from some mystical feat of the divine. He would do even better to acknowledge that those holding this view are entitled to live their lives without imposition from those who hold his view. Daniel Krimm '78 djkrimbo@i-2000.com Yonkers, N.Y.
Shakespeare PhotoAlthough the Princeton Shakespeare Company and I are grateful for the fine coverage of our Macbeth in the October 11 On the Campus, I would like to correct the caption of the photograph accompanying the article. The young man caught in the photo with me is John Smelcer '98, a master carpenter who created the set, and a splendid Ross / Lennox.Thomas P. Roche, Jr. *58 Professor of English Princeton, N.J.
Palmer StadiumRe several recent letters on the razing of Palmer Stadium: the arguments for destroying this landmark and replacing it with a simpler, smaller, and more utilitarian facility are the same as those used in New York City three decades ago for destroying the old Pennsylvania Station. If the arguments prevail, the result will be just as banal and just as tragic.Richard S. Ellwood '53 Rumson, N.J. |