by Jeremy Young | 7/27/2008 10:37:00 AM
Would anybody like to put forth an opinion on this? I haven't read Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy & Hope, nor even heard of it, so I have no idea whether Tocque (who's been known to go off the deep end occasionally) has got something worth talking about or not. But I'm intrigued. Anybody want to fill me in on the context?

One of my essays on Carl Becker has been published at HNN.

Here are two great posts on the anniversary of the Detroit Riots, by David Noon and Tom S. (who literally wrote the book on race relations in Detroit during the middle of the last century). Oddly, David's post reads more like Tom's book than Tom's post does, at least to me.

What's on your mind?

Labels:

 
Permalink

Links to this post:

Create a Link




4 Comments:


Blogger mark on 7/28/2008 11:21 PM:

I have not read Quigley firsthand but he was a deeply influential prof, much in the same way that Leo Strauss, Willim Appleman Williams or Robert Bork were, albeit with considerably different politics. Lots of his students who went on to be big wheels, including one POTUS ( Clinton).

At a minimum Quigley correctly understood the logical implications of Platonic philosophy.

 

Blogger mark on 7/28/2008 11:26 PM:

As long as we are on the subject:

"So what if I told you that the powers of financial capitalism (bankers etc.), had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences"

This is gibberish. "Finance capital feudalism" ??? WTF ?

Give me a good old fashioned Marxist. I didn't agree with them either but at least their use of the terminology made sense

 

Blogger Jeremy Young on 7/28/2008 11:36 PM:

Thanks, Mark. FYI, I think the quote that you're objecting to is Tocque's misinterpretation of Quigley, rather than Quigley himself.

 

Blogger mark on 7/29/2008 10:48 AM:

Hi Jeremy,

Yes, that's correct. Sorry for the lack of clarity