Just to make something clear
dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 10 10:02:50 MDT 2003
I've provided references for my analysis. You provide discussions of natural
rights ideologies. Look at the real diplomatic maneuvers of the Confederate
As for the rest of your opinions, you're welcome to them, but they have
little do with the actual development of US capitalism, and the history of
the enduring conflict between North and South.
I quoted Marx once, and referred to him twice in this communication. If
that's too much for you, then that's your problem.
Regarding ancestors, neo-Confederate? Is that an attempt to elicit personal
My ancestors? Russian emigre Jews, my grandfather having had the temerity
and good sense to kill a Tsarist military officer, and be liberated from
jail by a soldiers' soviet.
no blessings required or requested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Lause" <MLause at cinci.rr.com>
To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:01 AM
Subject: RE: Just to make something clear
> You speak of an "ability to distinguish history from personal fantasy."
> You don't seem to know the difference.
> History is about the sources. You--or a neo-Confederate ancestor
> worshipper--may have your cherished and comforting notions about the
> past, but don't confuse them with history. History is not about your
> reading of what Marx said but about what the sources tell us.
> You ignore what the secessionist strategists wrote and said to each
> other--about reestablishing the cotton South beneath the protection of
> the British Empire. You ignore what they said and wrote--brushing aside
> mere ideas to focus on the alleged determinants of the economic
> relations--but then you don't really address that subject either,
> because you are quoting Marx. Why not use a Ouija board?
> Marx was a bright fellow. Being bright doesn't mean he knew so more
> about what was happening on the other side of the planet than we can
> ignore what the people who were actually there doing things were saying
> about what they were doing. Of course, not only can bright people who
> write things be wrong, but the not-so-bright can later misread those
> writings. In this case, had the primary proponent of historical
> materialism have had access to much of the historical materials we do,
> he would have used them. I don't think he'd have quoted himself.
> In any event, anyone who tries to distill the "progressiveness" of Union
> victory in the Civil War--our "Second American Revolution"--to a
> singularity of any sorts doesn't understand what revolution is or
> suffers from severe tunnel vision. Revolution is a process in which
> conflicting interests vie for position and power. Anyone who sees
> "bourgeois revolution" as something to do just with the economic will of
> the bourgeoisie is deluding themselves. The next issue of LABOR HISTORY
> will include a piece on how the New England shoe strike of 1860 fed into
> the triumph of "free labor" ideology at the polls, the Unionist war
> effort, and emancipation. Simply put, it warps our understanding of the
> real world to treat these things as simplistically distinguishable.
> You might be engaged in some kind of model-building kind of social
> science that will discover and propound new "laws" about what happens
> and doesn't happen. Invariably, this approach ignores what doesn't fit.
> Certainly, this way of approaching the past has nothing to do with
> history or historical materialism.
> Bless you,
> Mark Lause
More information about the Marxism