[Marxism] Re: Lincoln as industrial capitalist

rrubinelli rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Sun May 29 11:22:54 MDT 2005

Guess I gotta parse, something I hate to do... but

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota at optonline.net>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Re: Lincoln as industrial capitalist

> > 2. Comparing LBJ to Lincoln, or the USMS actions in the 1960s to
> > and the Union Army in the 1860s is absurd.  Difference is
> > 1860-- bourgeois class ascending where to achieve its own power, its
> > "emancipation,"  it must speak to the emancipation of all (Marx).
> > 1960s-- different class ascending, bourgeoisie attempting to contain
> >
> > How many US marshals died in "combat" defending civil rights
> > How many died protecting James Meredith when he integrated ole Miss,
> > to mention died defending him from being shot in the back?
> This are completely irrelevant questions.

No, they're not, because the marshals were not engaged in anything
resembling the titanic social struggle of the Civil War, a struggle over
property relations, and when the black liberation struggle outgrew those
specific property relations that the marshals so valiantly represented,
guess what? protective service withdrawn...

Ask yourself where were the marshals in Selma, where were the US troops,
the federalized national guard to prevent the police attacks?

> HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! It is *precisely* because I place it in context that
> comparison between the Union Army and the Marshals work. Both advanced
> liberation not because this was their subjective goal, but out of
> self-interest!

As I said, the difference is in the 100 years of capitalism, from 1860
to 1960, that's why the comparison doesn't work.
> >
> > 3.  Besides that, what the Union Army did was unfinished,
> > even within that historical context, requiring Reconstruction,
> > Reconstruction, Black Reconstruction, and weren't you telling me 3
or 4
> > months ago how the Reconstruction governments were "carpetbaggers"
> > oppressive to black and white alike?  See above comment on history.

sks: Well, if they weren't oppressive to both, how come Blacks had to
rise up 100
 years later to assert excercises in self-liberation?

Come on Carlos, you can do better than that.  Ever hear of the overthrow
of reconstruction?  the attacks on the freedmens' bureaus and
representatives, the armed assaults on Northern officials, and by the
way Union govt agents, like marshals?  Jim Crow follows the overthrow of
radical Reconstruction.
>  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
> true liberation here and there, and true much agitation was made. But
> the dogmatist that reads Lenin's agitational material and confuses it
> history, you are not able to escape the clouded conciousness of
> superstision and hence fail to see history for what it is, and learn
> lessons that need to be learned.

Huh? What does any of that mean?  If you could illustrate this by a
solid historical reference then perhaps I wouldn't think of it as total

> > 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
> > links between their actions and the Emancipation  Proclamation.
> > is a link, believe me, but it isn't what you think it is.  That link
> > 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,
> during, and after the Civil War in the wholesale genocide of Native
> Americans and Mexicans, not to mention worker's (proto)strikes.

What I defend and support is the struggle against slavery, and the Union
Army as that instrument, unwilling to some degree always, of that
struggle.  What I admire is Lincoln, marshalling and martialing all
resources to wage(!) this battle, to insist on pursuing, seeking out,
closing with, and destroying the enemy once the battle was joined.  What
I respect is Lincoln's ability to comprehend the social, property
dimensions, involved in waging this battle to victory.  What I honor is
Lincoln's transformation, ability to step forward, to represent and
articulate a notion of general emancipation based on specific struggle.

The Union Army itself was the instrument for the destruction of slavery,
but not quite ever an instrument for black emancipation, the bourgeoisie
being, as a class, incapable of that, incapable of abolishing the
specific form of private property necessary for such a general
emancipation, contained in whole and part in the specific of black

The Union officers never knew quite what to do with the emancipated
former slaves.  Even at their best, Butler, Fremont they had no notion
of complete integration, complete equality.

And perhaps the greatest of the Union combat generals, Sherman, really
had no clue as to what to do..

> Yet this contradiction does not stop you from, correctly, admiring the
> 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
> and history is everything but black and white.

Huh?  What I said originally, is don't go overboard on LBJ and the
marshals.  The intervening 100 years, acknowledging the change, that
transformation in the role of the bourgeoisie is exactly what dialectic

> > 5. Somewhere along the line you've got to get your facts
> > Toyota doesn't dominate the US market,
> As I sent in a private email, I meant the hybrid/envirofriendly
> 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

Never got the private email.  No, not obvious by the context we were
discussing which was peak oil and the inevitable, immediate, depletion
of reserves.

> >  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,
> it was obvious from the post.

Again not obvious-- the question was why in 99 not in 98-- why did oil
go from less than $10 barrel to $24 barrel without any loss of supplies,
when reserve replacement rates were exceeding 100%.  China's increase
consumption was not a problem anytime in the last 15 years, and was not
a problem lin 2004 when supplies easily matched China's increased

SKS:. If it were for people like you, unless those marshals represent
> Proletarian Revolution, black children deserved to go to rotten
> schools. The implications of such nonsense is for you to bear.

If I were the old me I might respond to that statement by saying -- hey
I participated in those marches and demonstrations against segregation
in schools and housing so go fuck yourself.  But that was then.  Now
I'll say, hey  I participated in those marches and demonstrations
against segregation in schools and housing and believe me, I, we, never
ever relied on the marshals or the police for protection.  I was there,
I don't know if you were and based on the general ignorance of your
statements and the specific ignorance of that above statement, I'll bet
you weren't. But your presence does not matter.  Your ignorance does.

If the marshals hadn't been there, then the activists of SNCC would have
taken it upon themselves to protect and defend those kids, to bring them
to school and to take them home, confronting in that process whatever
attacks there might be, and that was exactly what the fed govt. did not
want-- black Americans organiziang for their own protection.  That's
called a dialectic too.


More information about the Marxism mailing list