>I'm working on an aritcle about the various left-wing traditions
>with regard to military policy. I remember that someone once posted
>an interesting comment about Marx's debt to Clausewitz, along with a
>citation on this. But I can't find that earlier post even with a
>google search. Did I just imagine this? Does Marx owe anything to
>Clausewitz. Also, is it true that Marx and Engels made valuable
>contributions as military analysts?
>Any enlightenment would be apprecated. Jeet
There were:
At 9:24 PM -0500 3/26/03, Jim Farmelant wrote:
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:24:55 -0500
>Subject: Re: Is Saddam winning political war?
>X-Juno-Att: 0
>X-Juno-RefParts: 0
>From: Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com>
>Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>
>Clausewitz has BTW been held rather high regard by Marxists.
>Both Marx and Engels (who fancied himself an expert in military
>matters) had great admiration for the old Prussian officer, as
>did Lenin later on, who often quoted him in his writings.
and
At 9:54 PM -0600 3/29/03, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:54:34 -0600
>From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>X-Accept-Language: en
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Clausewitz lives
>Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>
>
>
>Jim Farmelant wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Colonel Summers notes that during the Vietnam War, General Westmoreland
>> attempted to understand the North Vietnamese, by reading Mao,
>> and the Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu, both of whom, Westmoreland
>> believed had influenced General Giap's strategic thinking. Summers
>> suggests that Westmoreland was led astray in his reading, which led
>> him to take Sun Tzu, a bit too seriously, while ignoring the
>> Clausewitzian roots of Mao's strategic thinking, and more importantly,
>> the Clausewitzianism of Giap. Basically, Summers thinks that Giap
>> fought a Clausewitzian war, whereas the Americans under people like
>> General Westmoreland did not.
>>
>
>An anecdote which may or may not be illuminating. Back in 1967 I was
>working in my office in the evening when a history asst. prof also
>working late dropped by with the glum news that his chairman had just
>bounced his dissertation draft on him: it was on the influcence of
>Clausewitz on Lenin. At the time I was just feeling my way into Marxism,
>had never read any Lenin, but had read two or three volumes of Mao's
>work. Since I'm fairly good at helping other people with their writing,
>I asked him if I could take a look at it. He gave it to me and I settled
>down in an all-night doughnut shop to read through it.
>
>It echoed all sorts of things in Mao's writing. I produced a provisional
>outline for a redrafting of the thesis, which was good enough to
>respirit my friend. (He had an undergrad degree in chemistry and was
>considering going back to california and getting a lab job.) He went to
>work, finished it, and got his degree.
>
>Clearly there is a really strong overlap in the thought of Clausewitz,
>Lenin, & Mao, which shows through in reading Mao even if one is ignorant
>of Clausewitz & Lenin, or I would never have been able to give my friend
>the help I did give him. Roughly, Lenin's political thought 'translates'
>Clausewitz's military thought, and Mao somehow translated it back into
>military/political thought useful in the Chinese Revolution. I've never
>gotten around to reading Clausewitz myself, but it certainly seems like
>there is a pattern of thought there that can invigorate the thought of
>others in quite different situations.
>
>Carrol