Marx and the American Civil War (was Re: Realism in Eastern Europe)

[Max Sawicky]

> Karl Marx was a stauch supporter of the Union or Federal side in
> the American Civil War.  During that time he wrote numerous newspaper
> articles in support of the North and he made strenous efforts to rally
> worker support for the North especially when it appeared that Britain
> and other European powers were considering intervening on behalf
> of the Confederates.  Marx even corresponded with President Lincoln.
>
> This should BTW call into question Chris' contention that Marxism
> invariably defends the right to national self-determination.  . . .

Don't recall Chris said Marxism *invariably* defends right to NSD, but
whether "it" (whatever that means) does or not is less important than
whether the left should support it, and if so, when.

The Civil War also raises a question for the implacable opponents of NATO.
NATO policy is often criticized because a) its motives are not humanitarian,
b) the cost of intervention to civilians would be high; c) the leadership of
the group being defended (the KLA or the Albanian govt) is problematic; d)
the "bad guys" are supporting NATO.  All these things were true of the Union
in the Civil War.  Union motives were principally maintaining the Union, and
clearly the interests of Northern capital vis-a-vis Southern economic
interests were significant; anti-slavery was a justification for
intervention, but not the prime motive.  The toll on the working class on
both sides was horrendous, and continued in the South for decades after.
Reconstruction governments, while allowing the franchise to blacks, provided
much grist for criticism, especially to a purist revolutionary standpoint.
And the bad guys -- British imperialism -- sided with the South, albeit in
limited ways.  The arguments against NATO could be applied to the case for
the Union, hence they fail the Appomatox Test and reveal their inherent
illogic and unMarxism.

mbs