Correction - Defense of Marxism
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
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
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.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism