Visit 8

So my new guy has been James Lardner. Last time, I read the second folder in his box and this time I got through at least one more--it may have been two; I forget. I skipped the first one because it pre-dated his enlistment in the war and I wanted to jump into his service in Spain. As of now, I plan to go back to those papers. I think they may be more interesting after I know what happens to him during the war.

I don't know if Lardner ended up writing any literature as a result of his experiences but I'm reading the letters hoping that something shows up. If not, I'm doing the same thing that I would with any other volunteer. And I really like reading Lardner's letters because he's a writer. He's perceptive and intelligent and a lot of the time his analyses match up exactly with what historians have said about the same subjects.

In the letters Lardner says he's become a corporal and commands four men, 3 of whom are Spaniards. This was new for me. Thus far, I haven't come across explicit instances where Americans and Spaniards fight together. I thought the Americans fought with the Americans and the Spaniards with the Spaniards. I know that they fought under command of mixed nationality, but I didn't think the mixing went on below those upper ranks. Lardner did mention the boys were in their teens. Maybe that had to do with it. Maybe they weren't actually soldiers, just boys recruited from the local village?

Something very interesting to read was Lardner's justification of communists and their ideology. Of course the mother's letters are not available but it's clear that much of Lardner's letters are written as a response to arguments his mother puts forth against communism--which is very interesting. Even though her son is risking his life in Spain for a lot of these ideas, the mother doesn't give unconditional support without criticism. Instead, they argue. I've been very interested, since I've started reading these letters, in what the other American opinions were concerning the Spanish Civil War, communism, the Soviet Union, etc. Most of what we've been reading has taken the communist perspective. Therefore, these letters were extremely interesting because, through Lardner's counter-arguments, one can identify the initial objections and learn the opinions of someone holding an opposing view to that which I have been used to reading.

Lardner says: "In the first place"--which is indicative of an argumentative response--"it is not the goal of the Communist Party in any country to establish socialism or communism by violent overthrow of the government" but rather "to win the people over to their way of thinking by peaceful, organizational methods." Lardner recognizes, however, that violence does play a role in the communist struggle and justifies it by pointing out that force is simply the means through which opponents of communism maintain power. Therefore, communists are forced to fight back with force.

I'm unsure whether 1) this is really the official reason for the prominence of violence in communist ideology or at least propaganda or whether 2) this does not match up with official doctrine and is just Lardner's justification to his mother and maybe to himself. It sort of is sophisticated reasoning, however, and I would prefer myself that the first of the two options is the true one.

Lardner quoted negative stereotypes about communists which I thought I should record: "dirty bomb-throwing foreigners etc." Sounds like Bolshevik? What significance does this hold for the history of that time?