Louis, original thinking or material conditions didn't start or end with Karl Marx. This is the main reason I have to agree with Marx in saying, "I am not a Marxist."
Carl, brings up the Charles, and let's not forget Mary, Beard. The Beards picked up on the rise of the corporate form in American history, without really giving weight to the fact that in many and most ways the American Revolution was a revolt against the corporate form of British governance.
Charles, as far as a bourgeois revolutionaries, I don't think you can get to much more bourgeois than Atty. Lenin a member of the minor Russian nobility. Hey, at least we didn't stuff George Washington, of course the technology didn't exist back then either.
Don't go ballistic,
Tom L.
Louis Proyect wrote:
> >So, I would say the "standard" Marxist
> >answer is that the Am. Rev. was a
> >truly great rev.
> >
> >
> >Charles Brown
> >
>
> Lenin's remarks to American workers was not a Marxist analysis of the
> American revolution. It was instead a typical revolutionary greeting that
> the Comintern trotted out on special occasions, to greet delegations, etc.
>
> A more interesting discussion of the American revolution would involve the
> degree to which social-economic forms were transformed. Revolutions are
> supposed to abolish one form of property ownership and institute another.
> In Cuba the army and police marched into privately-owned plantations,
> factories and banks and announced that they now belonged to the people.
>
> In point of fact nothing like this occurred in the French Revolution or the
> American Revolution. Furthermore, Europe generally evolved peacefully
> toward modern capitalist relations as the aristocracy happily joined the
> bourgeoisie in exploiting the working-class. Everything that was
> revolutionary about 1789 and 1776 can be traced to the plebian elements
> like the sans-culottes or Tom Paine, who struggled against the so-called
> "revolutionary" bourgeoisie.
>
> I have attempted to debate Charles on these questions on the Marxism list,
> but he seems to lack the time and interest to dig into the historical
> detail. Quoting a speech or article from Lenin to make a point is the curse
> of Marxism. It is the sign of dogmatism. Burford is fond of this practice
> as well.
>
> If we can't get past this type of "holy scripture" approach, then we might
> as well leave politics to bourgeois ideologists, who seem much more
> motivated to dig beneath the surface. Can you imagine Francis Fukuyama
> quoting Adam Smith to make a point? No wonder the left is in such horrible
> shape.
>
> Louis Proyect
>
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)