"Sequestering" Resources-- the South and the North

DMS dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Tue Jul 15 05:45:24 MDT 2003


LP is quite correct.

The Civil War was not about developing the South's productive
forces, but about disentangling the development of the North's
from the restrictions of the South, this conflict between means
and relations taking its geographic form in the continuous
battles over the territories- the Maine-Missouri Compromise,
Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bloody Kansas, etc..

Development of the South would have required a capitalization of
Southern agriculture along the free soil lines of the North, and
was an essential part of Reconstruction, the very program
capitalism abandoned as property proved thicker than blood,
especially when the property is yours and the blood shed was
someone else's.


And that capitalization of the Southern agriculture, the
mechanization introduced after WWII, precipitates the civil
rights movement-- as the pre-existing property relations are
disrupted and capital appears, momentarily, as an afterimage
of its own past, demanding access to free labor.

I was thinking about Jim Crow and imperialism, and 1896 stuck in my head as the year the US begins its preparations for more than just continental dominance and as the year the Supreme Court makes Jim Crow the law of all the land in Plessy vs. Ferguson.

Anyone have any ideas on that?

dms




More information about the Marxism mailing list