War and good wine

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Thu Jul 10 06:25:23 MDT 2003


DMS proclaims that I answered his request for evidence not Huato's.

Honestly, I hadn't read DMS's mail, so that I could hardly have
answered him. But it is the same thing: on this issue any reformist
is as good as any other one. This particular reformist tries to force
my ideas by quoting this verbatim demonstration that I have said that
there was a war between N. York and London in North America during
the 1860s:

"But this civil war (please read Marx) was in the end a war between a
national-popular front led by the American bourgeoisie and the
British bourgeoisie, not between American slaveowners and British
capitalism"

Please note: I begun by explaining that this was a _civil war_. Civil
war, not international war, OK?

Later on, I add that it was "in the end" a war between a national-
popular front (and this means, specifically, a coalition of different
social classes and historic subjects where 'anyone interested in
further development of [self-centered, NG] capitalism' was included,
with petty bourgeois leadership and bourgeois goals) and the British
bourgeoisie. I further add, because _this_ was what I intended to
show, that in this particular case not any capitalism was furthering
development of productive forces. That North American capitalism
clashed with British capitalism on this issue in the South (and, I
add now, as a consequence, on the whole of the US).

"In the end" in my sentence above means, to whoever wants to
understand English, even the poor English of someone who is not a
native speaker, that the basic issue at stake, either through direct
military confrontation or through civil war where one of the sides
leant on a foreign power, was, in the end, as an Argentinean
bourgeois revolutionary put it,  "who was to manufacture and, most
importantly, who was to wear the T-shirts that could be made with
Southern Cotton". That is, in this sense the Civil War was a T-Shirt
War (in the same way that an expansionist British war in the
Caribbean was known for English historians as Jenkins' Ear War: if a
sailor's ear can generate a war, why not a few millions of T-shirts
and their potential users, that is former slaves now free workers?)

Now, if this brings some quietness to DMS and some relax to our
bandwidth, I don't care to state, once and for all, that "I don't
believe that British troops ever encountered American troops during
the 1860-1865 period, covered by the American Civil War." But I would
also add: "Neither did Paraguayan troops in 1865-1870."

It is up to the readers' wits to understand what does this last
sentence mean. Thus, I am afraid DMS will find it completely
irrelevant (aren't we talking American Civil War?). Well, you see,
your problem, DMS, is that the symbolic function is like tasting a
good wine. Keep with your own cheap beverages, but don't meddle with
those who appreciate a good cup of seasoned Cabernet.

Bye.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"Sí, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de
Buenos Aires, 1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _





More information about the Marxism mailing list