> What the historical record shows is that the two American bourgeois > revolutions ... actually facilitated access to the land at nominal prices for > white settlers. This widespread landownership amounted to a form of land > nationalization [at the expense of the Native Americans, natch] that created > favorable conditions for capitalist development through the abolition of > ground rent, which constitutes a precapitalist barrier to the development of > the productive forces under capitalism. This, and the absence of an > absolutist state bureaucracy, in turn fostered the generalization of > commodity production in the countryside, creating a wide home market for the > development of industry in the North, which eventually dominated the Union in > the aftermath of the Civil War. That is what Lenin showed in his analysis of > the "American path of bourgeois development” ... Due to the weakness of > Marxism in the United States, progress in this field has consisted mostly in > setting the “American path of bourgeois development” in its peculiar settler > colonialist — i.e., white supremacist — context, but the peculiarities of > American capitalist development, their impact on class struggles and, through > them, the ways in which those peculiarities shaped American political history > largely remain to be explored.<
this is very plausible. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
