Obviously I also wonder if the theoretical position was so strong why it could not have been argued out successfully (although perhaps restricting the number of posts on the subject daily).
CB:
>>Now it may be argued that Marx was supporting the bourgeoisie at a
>>time and
>>in a situation of rising capitalism, in which the bourgeoisie was
>>progressive.
JF:
>Isn't that the point at issue here? The 1860s was still a time of
>rising capitalism. The North's victory during that war ensured the
>destruction of slavery in the South and the political triumph of
>industrial capital in US politics. As a consequence the US was able to
undergo
>a very rapid industrialization, quickly becoming a major competitor with
>Great Britain. This in turn resulted in the rapid growth of an industrial
>proletariat, that was fed especially by the large-scale immigration to
>the US. Marx no doubt hade hopes that the rise of an American
>proletariat would ultimately strengthen the working class througout the
world.
>
>It seems to me that what is going on in Europe is to say the least quite
>different.
>We live in the period of late capitalism. The formation of a European
>superstate which Chris loudly applauds is being done at the expence
>of the working classes in Europe and elsewhere. Whereas, the American
>Cilvil War can be seen as having resulted in a situation in which the
>proletariat was able to grow both in numbers and in strength. The
>emergence of the European superstate seems likely to further the
>crushing of the working classes in Europe. The consolidation of the
>EC has already called into question the continued viability of the
>post-WW II welfare states that had been achieved as the result of decades
>of struggle. The increased mobility of capital has already undercut
>attempts by particular nation-states at regulating economic activity.
>And the consolidation of the EC institutionalizes this phenomena.
This is the main issue in marxist theory.
It is over 80 years ago that Lenin defined the latest stage of capitalism as one of moribund capitalism, finance capitalism, imperialism. It was the eve of the socialist revolution.
I realise that in quoting from the American Civil War when the bourgeoisie of the North was very much playing a dynamic progressive role, and suggesting transferring some implications to the process of unification and consolidation of the European superstate, I am making a big theoretical leap. But I would say this. There is also a well established thread in marxism that as capitalism develops and ripens towards the socialist revolution some its forms start to change and emerge in new ways that presage socialism.
I would say that NATO is changing in nature from an organisation designed mainly to defeat communism to a military alliance for stabilising the world in the interests of the western capitalists. It is so pre-eminent militarily that a war in which it is involved is not for the redivision of the world between imperialist blocs but about how it imposes its will on the world. In fact it is operating with very many restraints indeed, in which public opinion in the least influential of the states has a restraining effect.
Now it is true that the progressive forms that emerge under capitalism cannot progress to socialism without class struggle but the forms may still have progressive aspects to them.
Capitalism naturally tends to monopoly, and although this requires the state repeatedly to intervene to preserve some competition to maintain the semblance of a social system that stands above a particular class and benefits all society, this naturally also leads to increasing social planning of social production.
One of the features is the establishment of large markets, and the enlargement of states.
Am I arguing a theory of ultra-imperialism here? No I think not. There is certainly contention between the major imperialist powers. It is well hidden but one of the issues during this Yugoslavian war is whether the US or Europe will come out with their role enhanced relatively to the other. This is deeply concealed in the intense belief of Clinton and Blair in their personal communication skills and their little mutual admiration society. But it is there.
JF gives the main argument for the reactionary nature of the European superstate that it is coming about through the increased exploitation of the working class, and entails more of the same. I beg to differ. It is true that in the 80's the EEC had to concede ground to neo-liberal attacks on the welfare state, but the mid 90's have shown that that attack has been blunted. In the UK there is a real transfer of resources into health and education. In Germany and France popular resistance blunted the most radical features of the neo-liberal attacks under the previous governments. The EU as it now exists is a state in which 70% of the GDP is government-related and no one is shocked by this.
Yes there have been cuts in wages and increased competition. Yes the single currency for the single market implies a wave of rationalisation in which workers in different parts of Europe will be hit by job losses. But at the same time they will benefit by more competitive trading relations with the rest of the world, and the money they receive will buy more use values. It is not at all unmarxist to say that the masses know the benefit of large markets.
Indeed to avoid irritating people with another reading lesson, I am merely paraphrasing Lenin at this point.
The incorporation of eastern Europe into the EU is progressive, even though it will have to be gradual because of the great differences in the distribution of capital and the price of labour power in different parts of the continent.
>But Marx also saw the defeat of slavery as having emancipatary
>consequences for the working class as a whole. First of all for Marx
>the destruction of slavery was in itself emancipatory for the slaves
>themselves. It was also emacipatory for so-called 'free' labor because
>the destruction of the political power of the slaveholders would result
>in the removal of the last remaining impediments to the rapid
industrialization
>of the US. Prior to 1860 the Southern planter class constituted at the
>national level the ruling class of the US. They used their political
>power to back policies like low tariffs that while beneficial to themselves
>discouraged industrial development. The presidential election of 1860
>was a devastating political defeat for the Southern planters which is
>they quickly opted for secession in response. The military defeat
>of the planters that followed thereafter thus destroyed a major political
>barrier to industrialization (and the war itself spurred
>industrialization). For Marx the consequences of this development were
most welcome
>since it meant that there would be a rapid growth of the American
>industrial proletariat. And the emergence of the US as a major
>industrial power would no doubt in Marx's view also intensify the
>contradictions of capitalism.
You probably know this literature more fully than myself, but I accept that everything you say here is likely either to have been said by Marx, or is reasonable to argue is consistent with a marxist approach. Thus although I know one point where Marx argues that the introduction of protectionism followed the opening of the civil war, the fact that it was looming does not seem to me to be controversial. I suppose we should not attribute divine insight to Marx and he may not have been fully informed of all the details of political developments but I cannot see that the issue of protectionism is controversial.
However.
The attempt to preserve a tight little nationalist socialist republic in middle Europe after the collapse of the socialist camp, is a total cul-de-sac. Far, far worse, this is associated with a political strategy of ethnically cleansing the populations of surrounding states to enable Serbia to seize as much of the former Yugoslavia as possible, territorially, economically, and in terms of military might. This utterly crazy, totally anachronistic strategy, based on medieval maps of Kosovo prior to 1389, would be ridiculous if it was not so destructive.
There is no appreciable Serbian capitalist class that can survive with production based on such a small market. If it comes to a contest of masses of capital the bombing of the Danube bridges (which I oppose) makes the point more eloquently than any theory.
The consolidation of Romania and Bulgaria together with other front line states in dialogue with NATO demonstrates how isolated and eccentric Serbian nationalism is from a historical materialist point of view.
But racism based on culture, religion or skin colour is as damaging to the interests of working class unity as slavery was in the USA. One of the differences between us is that you look to the second decade of this century for the model of what marxists should do in capitalist states. I look to the fourth decade after the 7th Congress of the Comintern. Some regard fascism as defeated and in the past. I regard it as an ever present risk, not that it is easy for it to seize state power but because it can severely damage what democratic rights exist.
A nail bomb has just gone off in the centre of the Bengali muslim community in London, one week after a similar device went off in the afro-caribbean center of Brixton. It was claimed on the eve of the anniversary of Hitler's birthday by an organisation naming itself cryptically after Hitler, Combat 18 (A is the first letter of the alphabet, H is the 8th = A.H.)
There has just been a major political battle in London on a report into the death of the black teenager, Stephen Lawrence, that has condemned the police for "institutionalised racism" for the dilatory way it investigated this (and by implication other racist killings). The fight to oppose racism and fascism is currently one of the front lines in the struggle to extend democratic rights in this current.
The resolution of Blair and Clinton not to appease the racist and fascist oppression of the muslim Albanians is extremely important for working class unity, even though they should have delayed air strikes until they had a credible ground invasion force available.
For Kosovo.
>While Chris here thinks he is ridiculing his Marxist opponents in
>the name of Marxism, he in fact is being ridiculous. The reason
>why appeals to American workers to rise up against their capitalist
>exploiters would have been ridiculous prior to the 1860s is because
>in fact few American were proletarians then.
The working class was also only a small proportion of the population of Russia, but that did not stop Lenin calling for the defeat of the ruling class in an imperialist war in a situation that was revolutionary. The present situation is not revolutionary.
> If NATO
>decides to launch an invasion of Yugoslavia, it could if history is any
>guide
>easily turn into a quagmire.
Yes, that would be extremely reactionary. An invasion of Kosovo would not.
>>Now there must be a number of subscribers on this list who know Marx's
>>writings on the American Civil War quite closely.
>>
>>But as for Marx's would be followers, who are followers without
>>reading
>>Marx closely, they must be turning today in their graves -
>>intellectual
>>graves that is. Corporeally alive, but dialectically dead.
>
>I cannot help but suspect that Marx had Chris Burford in mind when
>is reported (by Engels) to have shouted "Je ne suis pas un Marxist!"
>
> Jim Farmelant
Touche'.
But fundamentally my challenge remains. The undialectical application of rigid rules from the second decade of this century that you always oppose what your government does, is nonsense.
It fails to accept that there are two aspects to the bourgeois state: a) a system by which the bourgeois class oppresses others b) a system which appears to stand above classes.
It is the nonsense that forgets that anyone who feels any allegiance to marxism must remember the concept of workers of all countries unite! - and yet we are duty bound to stand helplessly to one side while over one million people are driven from their homes by terror in the centre of Europe.
Christian writes:
>besides, and for the umpteenth time, who ever said that imperialist war
>couldn't have redemptive effects--even if by accident?
That is precisely what I understand the moderator of marxism at lists.panix.com to have written. This has restricted serious discussion of the basis on which the imperialist aspects of the war can and should be opposed or modified.
The situation is different in Europe to that in the USA. In Britain support for intervention runs at almost 3 to 1 in opinion polls. Censoring out the reasoned expression of that view on a list controlled largely by citizens of the USA, who have different reasons to be especially vigilant of their ruling class, is neither fair, not in the interests of building up lists with real authority in debate on matters of international significance. We may end up by saying that different things should be emphasised in different countries. That might be the true internationalism.
Chris Burford
London