Let’s take apart this claim by Christopher Lasch from 1977 that hasn’t aged well: “Such changes have made both racist ideology and the ideology of martial conquest, appropriate to an earlier age of empire-building, increasingly anachronistic.”

As a social scientist, I find it instructive to look at the mistaken assessments written by thoughtful people in past eras.

I thought of this after reading this passage from 1977 written by sociologist Christopher Lasch:

The functional significance of racism in Western society is that it once provided ideological support for colonialism and for backward labor systems based on slavery or peonage. These forms of exploitation rested on the direct, unconcealed appropriation of surplus value by the master class, which justified its domination on the grounds that the lower orders, disqualified for self-government by virtue of racial inferiority or lowly birth, needed and benefited from their masters’ protection. Racism and paternalism were two sides of the same coin, the “white man’s burden.”

Capitalism has gradually substituted the free market for direct forms of domination. Within advanced countries, it has converted the serf or slave into a free worker. It has also revolutionized colonial relations. Instead of imposing military rule on their colonies, industrial nations now govern through client states, ostensibly sovereign, which keep order in their stead. Such changes have made both racist ideology and the ideology of martial conquest, appropriate to an earlier age of empire-building, increasingly anachronistic.

Setting aside some of the now-unfashionable socialist jargon (“appropriation of surplus value”), it’s striking how wrong he was. Racist ideology and the ideology of martial conquest aren’t what they were in 1861, sure, but they haven’t gone away, nor do they seem increasingly anachronistic. Racist ideology is no longer being used to justify slavery (except sometimes retroactively, from various neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis); it’s being used to justify economic and social inequality. As for the ideology of martial conquest, we’re seeing that now in Ukraine and in talk about Mexico and Canada, also Taiwan, Gaza, and probably some other places that aren’t coming to mind right now.

Lasch was hardly unique in this error. Indeed, it would be fair to say he deserves some credit for promoting an “end of history” thesis over a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union. From the perspective of 1977, it seemed to make sense to think of racism and martial conquest as on the way out.

Regarding racism: in the context of U.S. politics, racism was alive and well in 1977 (in school busing issue in Boston, for example), but arguably the racism was more of a vehicle for political realignment than anything else, a “card” for liberal and conservative politicians to play while they could, but a declining aspect of American culture, something that was only held onto by various left-behind and disappearing groups. Something we can’t say now, given the centrality of race to influential political analyses and movements on the left and the right.

Regarding martial conquest: the U.S. had just lost in Vietnam, China was soon to give up trying to boss Vietnam around, Vietnam had its hands more than full with Cambodia, the Soviets were soon to fail in their invasion of Afghanistan. Martial conquest was indeed looking like a dead end, not just in the large scale of mutual assured destruction but pretty much anywhere in the world. The loser Argentine generals were soon to fail to conquer the tiny Falkland Islands.

Up until the early 2000s, it could well be argued that racism and martial conquest were going away, so instead of criticizing Lasch for not forecasting the post-2010 world, we should perhaps credit him for anticipating a trend that would continue for more than twenty years after he wrote his article.

That said, I have one concern.

I can accept Lasch’s statement about the “the ideology of martial conquest, appropriate to an earlier age of empire-building,” being “increasingly anachronistic.” He was wrong, but the geopolitics of the 1960s-1990s seemed to pretty strongly support this “end of history” take.

Regarding the racism, though, I don’t think Lasch was fully thinking through the issue. As long as there is political inequality, and as long as there is economic inequality, there will be a desire for explanations and justifications of these patterns, and racism is an always-available source of such explanations. So, even setting aside current disputes about race in science and politics, I have the feeling that racism is here to stay.

Again, the point of this is not to say, Hey, this dude from 50 years ago got things wrong!, but rather to reflect up on the perspectives that people had back then. Our own takes are time-bound, and one way to understand this is to consider time-bound takes from generally sensible people from earlier times.