[lbo-talk] why strategy?

Mark Bennett bennett.mab at gmail.com
Sun Oct 23 21:35:45 PDT 2011


I'm not sure I understand your question regarding revolutionary tactics and the American Civil War, but that revolution did not arise out of unorganized, extemporaneous tactical struggles the eventually erupted into an armed conflict. One could argue that the "free soil, free men" ideology of the antebellum Republican party was a long-term strategic plan to benefit the native bourgeoisie. Eric Foner's classic study, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, and the first volume of Richard Bensl's excellent two-part study of 19th century American political economy, Yankee Leviathan, both go into this issue in considerable detail, as do many other works, of course. Marx himself also wrote quite a contemporary articles on Civil War, many of them of staggering insight and prescience. They are collected here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/

To take only one example, Marx's piece for Die Presse of October 12, 1862, "Comments on the North American Events," opens with this statement:

"The short campaign in Maryland has decided the fate of the American Civil War, however much the fortune of war may still vacillate between the opposing parties for a shorter or longer time. As we have already stated in this newspaper, the fight for the possession of the border slave states is a fight for the domination over the Union, and the Confederacy has been defeated in this fight, which it started under extremely favourable circumstances that are not likely ever to occur again."

This proved to be true, but there were damn few people who thought so at the time. Marx's analysis of Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation is equally astounding:

"Lincoln’s proclamation is even more important than the Maryland campaign. Lincoln is *a sui generis *figure in the annals of history. {He] has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, cothurnus, no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions always the most commonplace form. Other people claim to be “fighting for an idea”, when it is for them a matter of square feet of land. Lincoln, even when he is motivated by, an idea, talks about “square feet”. He sings the bravura aria of his part hesitatively, reluctantly and unwillingly, as though apologising for being compelled by circumstances “to act the lion”. The most redoubtable decrees — which will always remain remarkable historical documents-flung by him at the enemy all look like, and are intended to look like, routine summonses sent by a lawyer to the lawyer of the opposing party, legal chicaneries, involved, hidebound *actiones juris. *His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing tip of the old American Constitution.

Nothing is simpler than to show that Lincoln’s principal political actions contain much that is aesthetically. repulsive, logically inadequate, farcical in form and politically, contradictory, as is done by, the English Pindars of slavery, *The Times, The Saturday Review *and *tutti quanti. *But Lincoln’s place in the history of the United States and of mankind will, nevertheless, be next to that of Washington! Nowadays, when the insignificant struts about melodramatically on this side of the Atlantic, is it of no significance at all that the significant is clothed in everyday dress in the new world?"

This again was a remarkably accurate assessment, one that virtually no one else at the time made. All of Marx's writing on the war are worth reading. However, I don't see that the Civil War offers much in way of lessons for OWS.

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:


> julio's comments made me go watch the debate again.
>
> in it maisano says that occupation strategy, it's merely a tactic. he
> thinks that it feels as if some of the folks at OWS just think that,
> paraphrase, tactical victory will pile up on top of tactical victory
> and then we'll have some sort of revolution....
>
> why not?
>
> whence the idea that revolution or movements have to be organized? Not
> being a student of previous revolutions in other countries, I have no
> idea how things happened during other periods of mobilization.
>
> I was trying to think about what Julio said, especially when he
> pointed to Marx's arguments in the Manifesto. When I think about the
> u.s. bourgeois revolution, it was the civil war, but as far as I know,
> there wasn't a systematic strategy waged on behalf of the long term
> strategic interests of the bourgeoisie. But then, not being a student
> of the civil war...for those where are, what are the lessons, if any>
>
> what about the French Rev? Cuba? Does Russia count here? China?
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list