[Marxism] Re: Lincoln as industrial capitalist
Carlos A. Rivera
cerejota at optonline.net
Sun May 29 10:38:58 MDT 2005
----- Original Message -----
From: "rrubinelli" <rrubinelli at earthlink.net>
> 1. I can't be the only one who recalls "solid" as a term meaning
> agreement, can I?
I get it know. My training in english tends to be a little less slangy.
> 2. Comparing LBJ to Lincoln, or the USMS actions in the 1960s to Lincoln
> and the Union Army in the 1860s is absurd. Difference is in....history.
> 1860-- bourgeois class ascending where to achieve its own power, its own
> "emancipation," it must speak to the emancipation of all (Marx).
> 1960s-- different class ascending, bourgeoisie attempting to contain it.
> How many US marshals died in "combat" defending civil rights actions?
> How many died protecting James Meredith when he integrated ole Miss, not
> to mention died defending him from being shot in the back?
This are completely irrelevant questions.
> importantly, and historically, how did actions of US marshals
> fundamentally change property relations? Simple questions.
> That marshals protected African-Americans is fine. Doesn't change the
> historical context, the purpose of the actions of the ruling class.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! It is *precisely* because I place it in context that the
comparison between the Union Army and the Marshals work. Both advanced black
liberation not because this was their subjective goal, but out of
> 3. Besides that, what the Union Army did was unfinished, incomplete,
> even within that historical context, requiring Reconstruction, radical
> Reconstruction, Black Reconstruction, and weren't you telling me 3 or 4
> months ago how the Reconstruction governments were "carpetbaggers" and
> oppressive to black and white alike? See above comment on history.
Well, if they weren't oppressive to both, how come Blacks had to rise up 100
years later to assert excercises in self-liberation?
The liberal myth of Reconstruction confuses the agitational propaganda from
both sides (liberationist and white supremacists) with what actually
happened on the ground, which was basically the expropation of property for
the benefit of northern industrial capital. True, there where pockets of
true liberation here and there, and true much agitation was made. But like
the dogmatist that reads Lenin's agitational material and confuses it with
history, you are not able to escape the clouded conciousness of political
superstision and hence fail to see history for what it is, and learn the
lessons that need to be learned.
> 4. No, I did not require US marshals to assure my ability to attend
> school, but I was involved in actions that US marshals, and other
> police/military forces "protected." So do me the favor and show me the
> links between their actions and the Emancipation Proclamation. There
> is a link, believe me, but it isn't what you think it is. That link is
> the pivotal role of black labor in US history. Oops, there it is
> again.. history.
Likewise, the same Union Army you so kindly defend, was involved, before,
during, and after the Civil War in the wholesale genocide of Native
Americans and Mexicans, not to mention worker's (proto)strikes.
Yet this contradiction does not stop you from, correctly, admiring the Union
Army in its struggle against the Confederacy. To admire and celebrating the
positive, while recognizing the negative, is a dialectical view
I don't disagree with factual history, I disagree with your highly
machinaist, undialectical view of history. Its either good or bad with you,
and history is everything but black and white.
> 5. Somewhere along the line you've got to get your facts straighter--
> Toyota doesn't dominate the US market,
As I sent in a private email, I meant the hybrid/envirofriendly market.
Nevertheless, they are number 4 in the USA across the board, after ford, gm
and honda. I thought this was obvious by the context we where discussing.
> China did not radically increase
> its consumption of oil 98-99,
I was referring not to a one year period, but to the last 10-15 years, and
it was obvious from the post.
Your constant decontextualization is what irks me. And you do the same with
history, decontextualize, and expect it to be a constant, values-based,
ideological process, which it never is.
> Reconstruction governments were not
> oppressive to black and white alike, and LBJ did what he did, in DC, in
> Mississippi, and in Vietnam to maintain capital against the prospects
> for real social emancipation.
Oh this is all true, as I said.
But again, I'll like you to tell that to the school children who didn't die
because a marshal took them to school.
And my earliest memory of a US marshal is at 8 years old banging down my
Dad's home door to execute a search warrant for a political murder they were
trying to frame him for. And I have been arrested by them. Pepper sprayed,
thrown out of courts, etc etc etc. Yet, I can see context, and identify
positive and negative actions for what they are, whereas for you everything
is good or bad.
And furthermore, as a person of color, I can see why we need all the help we
can get. If it were for people like you, unless those marshals represent the
Proletarian Revolution, black children deserved to go to rotten segregated
schools. The implications of such nonsense is for you to bear.
More information about the Marxism