[Marxism] Howard Zinn from 2005 - "Don't despair over the Supreme Court"

hari kumar hari6.kumar at gmail.com
Mon Oct 8 12:29:30 MDT 2018


Regarding:

> Dennis Brasky <dmozart1756 at gmail.com>
> excerpt -
> "There is enormous hypocrisy surrounding the pious veneration of the
> Constitution and ?the rule of law.? The Constitution, like the Bible, is
> infinitely flexible and is used to serve the political needs of the moment.
> When the country was in economic crisis and turmoil in the Thirties and
> capitalism needed to be saved from the anger of the poor and hungry and
> unemployed, the Supreme Court was willing to stretch to infinity the
> constitutional right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It
> decided that the national government, desperate to regulate farm
> production, could tell a family farmer what to grow on his tiny piece of
> land.... CUT......
> It would be naive to depend on the Supreme Court to defend the rights of
> poor people, women, people of color, dissenters of all kinds. Those rights
> only come alive when citizens organize, protest, demonstrate, strike,
> boycott, rebel, and violate the law in order to uphold justice.
> http://www.howardzinn.org/dont-despair-about-the-supreme-court/
>
> Dear Denis: Obviously Zinn made an enormous contribution to progressives
and Marxists, when he emulated A.L.Morton's "A People's History of England"
- & performed the same treatment for the USA. You do not comment on the
excerpt, but I take it you are approving?  And are perhaps (?) suggesting
that the current  furore over  the Supreme Court is misplaced.
If you are, or if you are not -  will you please forgive these two points? :
1) "It would be naive to depend on the Supreme Court " etc...
The salient word here is "*depend*". Who, in fact, "depends" upon it? No
Marxist striper of any sort I believe.
2) In addition, is not a several shades-worth of difference between - for
e.g. - a Bader Ginsburg and Kavanaugh - a potential benefit to the workers
and women of the USA? (Please notice the word 'potential').
The above I suspect many on the list would agree with.

However, I doubt this following point, will have any resonance here. But I
suppose I should state this - perhaps to salve my own mind - but to be even
more explicit.  Therefore, here is a larger point:
In the same vein, should Marxists take account of a potential split between
two inveterate parties of capital - as are Democrats and Republicans? I
believe that it can be shown that there is a *primarily* pro-Industrial
wing of capital (republicans) and a *primarily* pro-Finance capital wing
(democrats). Of course given the inter-penetration of capitals since Lenin
echoed parts of Hilferding, nothing is *absolute*. As industrial capital
itself saw the ease, in the period of 'financialisation', of making profits
without *producing* *anything*  (or at least as much of as it had been
won't to do previously) - it became 'financialised'. And of course *both*
Democrats and Republicans cannot do without the financial capitalist class.
Nonetheless, there is a - *perhaps only a smidgen* - but there *is a
difference*.
Anyway, forgive me if I have misunderstood your underlying point in your
clip from Zinn.
Hari Kumar



More information about the Marxism mailing list