Correction - Defense of Marxism

Waistline2 at Waistline2 at
Sun Sep 28 21:02:33 MDT 2003

>The United States had Marxists in the past, it is true, but they were a 
strange type of Marxist, or rather, three strange types. In the first place, these 
were the émigrés cast out of Europe, who did what they could but could not 
find any response; in the second place, isolated American groups, like the De 
Leonists, who in the course of events, and because of their own mistakes, turned 
themselves into sects; in the third place, dilettantes attracted by the 
October Revolution and sympathetic to Marxism as an exotic teaching that had little 
to do with the United States. Their day is over. Now dawns the new epoch of 
an independent class movement to the proletariat and at the same time of -- 
genuine Marxism. In this too, America will in a few jumps catch up with Europe 
and outdistance it. Progressive technique and a progressive social structure 
will pave their own way in the sphere of doctrine. The best theoreticians of 
Marxism will appear on American soil. Marx will become the mentor of the advanced 
American workers. To them this abridged exposition of the first volume will 
become only an initial step toward the complete Marx. < 

Trotsky in Defense of Marxism 


Well the logic of history has played itself out since 1939. An epoch is of 
course not an era. An epoch is of course distinguished by a qualitative juncture 
in the means of production that ushered in a new mode of production or the 
starting point of transition to a new mode of production. Transitions to a new 
mode of production is not a political event as such but arise on the basis of 
the transformation in the form of wealth and the material power of the 
productive forces. This cannot be stated any clearer. 

The transition from political feudalism or rather property in land as the 
primary form of wealth of society was first driven by a transition in the form of 
wealth - the emergence of gold as movable wealth. This sets the stage for the 
universal emergence of exchange. Slavery was the axis for the development of 
industry or the transition from scattered manufacture to industry proper. An 
epoch - not an era, of change opened. 

An era superficially refers to a quantitative juncture or expansion of the 
means of production or an existing social system and method of producing. The 
industrial system has gone through various eras - quantitative expansions or 
boundaries. Reformism and anarcho-syndicalism are inevitable. 

The era that opened up in 1930/1940 was the mechanization of agriculture and 
not a new class movement of the proletariat. What actually happened was that 
the sharecropper was liquidated by capital as a class. This entire process was 
the basis for and called the Civil Rights movement. At the same time the swing 
of industry from North to South took place. 

I do not enjoy "shooting fish in a barrel." There is no sport or intellectual 
stimulation in stating the obvious. Who are the "dilettantes attracted by the 
October Revolution and sympathetic to Marxism as an exotic teaching that had 
little to do with the United States?" Even Mr. Trotsky understood the outer 
external logic of the development of Marxism in America, although I describe the 
inner logic of the process as it emerged on the basis of Reconstruction. 
"Dilettantes" is far to kind of a word for me. 

The dawn of a new epoch would appear more than a half a century later. 
It is correct to place the roots of the "socialist movement" in the populist 
movement and as have been stated, a reformulation - these "dilettantes" or 
semi-fascist elements, were won over on the basis on the prestige of Lenin. The 
communist of the Third International were generous in their dealing with the 
Americans. I have no such need in assessing our history. Let the card fall where 
the players sit at the table. 

Then again I am familiar with the literature and the mechanic of American 
history. This is all old hat or as it is popular to say in the era of Bush, the 
socialists of the past were "all hat and no cattle."  Now Trotsky talks about a 
new or "genuine Marxism" in 1939. Who on earth do you think he is talking 
about?  Let me guess the *******. 

Please, American Marxism has been the laughing stock of the world communist 
movement from day one. We are just today learning how to stand on our feet. 
Trotsky does not point the finger at Moscow.  Then again, this is not my man. I 
did not have to read him to understand American history and the logic of the 
anarcho syndicalist. Rather, I read Lenin and he is very very clear. And smarter 
than Trotsky on every question. Lenin explains the anarcho-syndicalism back 
in 1910. 
Yes, there is a new doctrine of the class struggle in America and it is that 
of the communist class and let's be clear who paved the way for this doctrine 
in American history. Its political strategy is based on the North/South fault 

Later in this same article Mr. Trotsky states: 

"The United States, which formally has almost no colonies, is nevertheless 
the most privileged of all the nations of history. Active immigrants form Europe 
took possession of an exceedingly rich continent, exterminated the native 
population, seized the best part of Mexico and bagged the lion's share of the 
world's wealth. The deposits of fat thus accumulated continue to be useful even 
now, in the epoch of decline, for greasing the gears and wheels of democracy."

I hold only the American Marxist responsible for understanding their history. 
The most prized colony is the South or rather old plantation South and it was 
won in the Civil War. Here is the key. 

Melvin P. 

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list