For Marx, the fight against slavery would, in the long run, make it easier for the working class to combine.
If you want to point to Marx's error, it was probably that Marx as well as all informed commentators at the time presumed that the war would not take long. It may be that NATO is making the same mistake.
Max Sawicky wrote:
> 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
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901