====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I would have to respestfully disagree with this to some extent as it relates to the overly adulatory narrative of the first American revolution. Clearly, the liberation movements of the 20th Century have every right to appropriate to themselves the progressive legacy of 1776 or the myth thereof. The actual objective truth is somewhat different as what occured then was not really a social revolution, but a political revolution against British rule, unlike what happened in 1861-1870s which was a social revolution on an epochal scale. Moreover, many blacks fought on the side of Britain and were freed as a result,particularly by Lord Dunmore in his 1776 Emancipation Proclamation, while the rebel governor, a certain Jefferson, responded savagely decreeing castration for any such slaves who were captured. Simon Schama's excellent book Crossings,I think itwas gives a good descrition of this side of the story. I also think there are some African-American historians out there who condider your take on this as overly generous and would pick a bone with you over the assertion that it wasn't possible to do away with slavery then. On 1/17/10, waistli...@aol.com <waistli...@aol.com> wrote: > ====================================================================== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ====================================================================== > > > > > The America Revolution of 1776 was revolutionary, ushering in a whole new > epoch of national liberation. Liberation is from whom, if not imperialism > as military garrisons, economic and political relations designed to benefit > the imperial power and reduce the non-imperial citizens to a status of > second class citizenship? The Boston Massacre as a bookmark of the First > American Revolution exploded over working men seeking employment and fights > over > British soldiers receiving preferential hiring. National liberation arises > on the basis of the bourgeois property relation. This however does not say > enough. > > The entire historical-social process of national liberation, begun in > America, went on for another two hundred years. The Vietnamese Revolution > closes out this juncture of history - more than less, with the capture of > Saigon > in April 1975 and the reunification of their country a year later. > > The Revolution of 1776 was a new thing in history. Unlike Europe, America > was capitalist from its inception. The total destruction of the Native > American communal life left no feudal or communal hangovers. There was a > large > and widespread class of small producers. Most importantly, from time to > time, as much as one-quarter of the toilers were slaves. America was a > colony, > meaning it was owned by England and its purpose was to ship goods and > resources back to the mother country. For the first time, a revolution for > national liberation - against imperialism, was also bound up with > revolution > against feudal political restrains. > > To say that the revolution of 1776 was a national liberation movement or as > it is called a democratic revolution or bourgeois democratic revolution is > not enough. The American Revolution was an agrarian bourgeois revolution, > in which the Slave Oligarchy also had a material interest in liberation > from England. It is interesting to note that the paramount leader of the > revolution, George Washington was the biggest slave holder and the richest > man > in America. When the Civil War began - 1861, Jefferson Davis, President > of > the Confederate states of America was the biggest slave holder and one of > the richest men in America. This is interesting to note because the > formation of the Confederate States of America, was a reactionary movement > for self > determination (national liberation), to preserve the political authority > of an old ruling class and slavery. > > Was the American Revolution revolutionary? Yes. Was it progressive? Yes. > Was the formation of the CSA revolutionary or progressive? No. National > movements need be assessed on their own basis, within the environment they > are a > part of. > > The clearest thinking people in 1776 understood that unless the national > liberation revolution emancipated the slaves, society would have to fight > the > revolution out all over again. As the goals of the revolution advanced it > became understood that national liberation and the construction of America > as a truly impendent and truly free bourgeois democratic state required > building the foundation for an industrial bourgeoisie and their assumption > of > power. This understanding is expressed in the fights at the Constitutional > Convention over slavery. > > To realize revolutionary goals requires more than clear thinking and > understanding of historical necessity - social consequence, by advanced > thinkers. It was not possible to abolish slavery in America in 1776, > although > moral, economic and political opposition to it existed. As the North evolved > its > production capacity and outran the consuming capacity of the South, the > class demands on government by the political North, emerged as antagonistic > to the political authority of the Slave Power. And Lincoln understood this > with remarkable clarity. His program to end slavery, initially consisting > of > compromises to the Slave Power, meant he understood that slavery had to > end, one way or another. Lincoln did not compromise over the historical > necessity to end slavery. His daily actions and policy expressed the > political > contending of classes and conflicting economic layers of society, driving > completion of the First American Revolution. > > The American Civil War was driven to complete the evolution of 1776 or > complete what is called “the national democratic revolution,” as a curve of > our history. In this sense every intense political struggle riveted to the > > North/South political axis was over slavery, as opposed to “black people.” > The index or bookmark for determining whether or not the democratic > revolution was “completed” was emancipating the slaves. The banner of > “national > unity” articulated by Lincoln was a nation - rather than a collection of > states, conceived in liberty ad justice for all. > > II. > > In many respects the Chinese Revolution was not very different, although it > evolved at another quantitative boundary of the industrial revolution and > capital. Mao in history appears as a combination of George Washington, > David Walker, Lincoln and Lenin. > > A new boundary of hsitory allowed the Chinese communists to fight as > representatives of the advanced forms of classes, rising and falling with > changes in the material power of productive forces. Thus, the Chinese > communist > sought to express and represent their proletariat as the advanced class, in > its future evolution, under conditions of uniting the Chinese people and > nation under an independent state. The goal of national unity articulated > by > the Chinese communists was ousting imperial foreigners as masters of China. > > At a certain stage in the evolution of the Chinese Revolution, the CCP > superseded the KMT as the voice of the Chinese people and nation. What was > fundamental in this period of history was not the distinction between > classes > as abstract formula, but the distinction between classes as this > distinction > expressed itself as imperial exploiting peoples and colonial exploited > peoples. The former are called imperialist for a reason. The latter are > colonials for a concrete material reason. > > History has confirmed that the colonials could liberate themselves from the > closed colonial systems short of the overthrow of all capital, domestic > and foreign. The proletariat cannot emancipate itself without emancipating > all of society from bourgeois property. Finally, the world cannot be > liberated from finance capital without the overthrow of the bourgeois state > in the > imperial countries. The colonials and former colonials cannot overthrow the > American empire. > > Thus, the communist fight for the independence of the proletariat in the > colonies of that period meant two things: the stubborn and consistent > struggle to form a Leninist party based on the distinction between exploited > > peoples and oppressed peoples because the proletariat in the colonies are > colonials first and foremost. This means emancipation from capital is > inconceivable without first overthrowing imperialism as paramount. Second: > winning > the peasants from being a reserve of imperialism and reaction to the cause > of > the communist insurgency on a world scale. An abstract independence of the > proletariat in China is just that, a hollow abstraction that denies the > imperial state and people are the paramount problem. In this abstraction > domestic capital is the primary enemy, toward which all the social forces > should > be focused. > > Realizing the goal of an emancipated China was a precondition for any goals > of economic socialism, much less the emancipation of the colonial > proletariat. This same dynamic existed for the revolution in Vietnam. > > The reality fact is that the inability of the workers and revolutionaries > in the imperialist country to overthrow capital conditions the political > scope of the actual contending of classes in the colonies. The historic > question of the Chinese Revolution has never been and will never be > subordination > of the workers to the KMT - a huge distortion of reality, but converting > the slaves of imperialism from being a reserve of the bourgeoisie to a > reserve of the revolution at the weal link in the chain of imperial > exploitation. > > In the colonies of the first half of the past century it was correct policy > for communists to enter into alliance with all classes - including the > patriotic bourgeoisie, to the degree it opposed imperialism. As a class > sector > and in its economic logic, the degree that the patriotic bourgeoisie > opposes imperialism is bound up with its material relations as market > relations > in the domestic economy. > > This policy arises and exists as an expression of policy and economic > relations of the imperialist bourgeoisie and their workers that stabilized > the > imperial relation in the first place. The question of the KMT, which a > certain person continues to raise as a betrayal of “the revolution” by > subordinating the workers to this organization, is posed incorrect factually > and > theoretically because it is posed from the framework of the internal class > relations of the colonies rather than the internal class relations that made > > imperial conquest possible. > > The issue for me is simple. An emancipated China governed by Chinese - and > even capitalist, was more important and desirable in the first half of the > past century, than a thousand declaration about how communist betrayed the > revolution. The Soviet communists and those in the Comintern did not betray > the Chinese Revolution. In fact, these communist made it possible to form > and stabilized the CCP, educated the Chinese communists in revolutionary > Marxism and armed the revolution. Even if their were mistakes in > judgement, > these mistakes did not constitute betrayal of revolution. > > At one boundary of development of the revolution in China unity with the > KMT - with the communist maintaining a separate organization, expressed the > reality fact of social forces. At another stage of the evolution of the > Chinese revolution domination of all social forces by the Chinese > communists > became possible and was carried out. Throughout the entire history of the > revolution, the communist maintained links and alliances with domestic > capital as part of their policy. Was this policy correct? The Chinese > communists > felt it correct and that is all that matters. Mistakes in judging the > moments of transition and tempo and shifting relations between various > organizations representing and expressing different classes characterize > all > revolutions. However the banner of national unity was absolutely correct > for China > and Vietnam. > > The banner of national unity in the Civil War, articulated as a nation > conceived in liberty and equality for all was also appropriate as the > banner. > > In respects to China and Vietnam what requires explanation is the behavior > of the proletariat, and then the communists in America, France, England and > Japan. The simple fact of history is that the Chinese and Vietnamese > Revolutions triumphed under the banner of National Liberation or national > unity > against imperialism. > > WL. > > > > > ________________________________________________ > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com > ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
