Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion
- Subject: Re: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion
- From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:26:02 -0700
Jim Farmelant wrote:
>I find it amazing how both Lou & Andy have managed from a Marxist
>standpoint come to conclusions concerning the American Revolution,
>the French Revolution, and the American Civil War, that are strikingly
>reminiscent of those championed by conservative historians.
>In Britain there has long
>existed a school of historians that have argued that the English Civil
>Wars were not revolutionary in nature. Conservative historians have
>long defended the notion that there were no bourgeois revolutions
>and they have done so because this fits in well their view that there
>are no objectively real clashes between the interests of different
>social classes.
>
>I suppose one should not be so surprised though. Eugene Genovese
>whose work was discussed recently on LBO-Talk, developed a
>view of slavery as having constituted a non-capitalist mode of production
>whose stability rested on the ability of slaveholders (by virtue of
>their paternalism) being able to win the consent of their slaves.
>Genovese developed this analysis of slavery on the basis of his extension
>of Gramsci's conception of consensus to the social relations of the
>antebellum South. It was perhaps only inevitable that given such a
>viewpoint that Genovese's politics have over the years shifted
>from the Marxian left (Genovese was a member of the CPUSA in
>his youth and later was a member of the Progressive Labor Party)
>to a neo-confederate politics which makes explicit the glorification
>of the antebellum South that was implicit in his historiographical
>work. In Europe too the work of Gramsci has been taken up
>by intellectuals of the New Right. I suppose that this becomes
>possible providing that one strips Gramsci of his Marxism.
A timely note, Jim. On the question of history, we might have to
organize the Cox-Farmelant-Furuhashi tendency, fighting against
empiricism, an inability to see the forest (revolutions &
counter-revolutions) for the trees (who's the leader of the club?;
etc.), conservative misappropriations of Gramsci, etc. :)
Yoshie
- Thread context:
- RE: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion, (continued)
- RE: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion,
Austin, Andrew Sun 22 Oct 2000, 03:50 GMT
- RE: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion,
Charles Brown Sun 22 Oct 2000, 13:45 GMT
- Re: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion,
Jim Farmelant Sun 22 Oct 2000, 15:56 GMT
- Re: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion,
Jim Farmelant Sun 22 Oct 2000, 15:56 GMT
- Re: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion,
Yoshie Furuhashi Sun 22 Oct 2000, 17:26 GMT
- RE: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion,
Austin, Andrew Sun 22 Oct 2000, 18:32 GMT
- RE: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion,
Austin, Andrew Sun 22 Oct 2000, 18:39 GMT
- RE: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion,
Charles Brown Sun 22 Oct 2000, 18:54 GMT
- Re: Debating slavery: Marx's discussion,
Graham Sun 22 Oct 2000, 19:02 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]