====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
First, I'd like to belatedly comment that the accusation that Trotsky was a Nazi German collaborationist is just stupid beyond description. It's like the allegations that Saddam Hussein had ties to the terrorist attack on 9/11. It's such a fucking moronic thing to allege and so beyond worth discussing that I don't have words to describe it (I think I just spoke a redundant sentence; forgive me). Second, I'd like to mention that I consider myself a sort of learning-to-be-scientific socialist; a communist, but a Marxist-in-training. So forgive any deep deficiencies in my logics. On 05/10/2010 09:45 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Your question tend to prove such is needed. An indigenous American Marxism > would look like America and our unique experience as a pure capitalist > country. I hold the notion that one of the very biggest mistakes revolutionary socialists, specifically Marxists, have made in this country was to abandon the IWW in favor of founding a Comintern Communist party; abandoning an organic, vibrant, powerful, revolutionary working class movement in order to try to parrot the Russian revolution, a revolution with profound weaknesses rooted in the backwards nature of Russian society. An indigenous American Marxist movement would have, from the time of its event, learned a great deal from the Russian experience but been most healthy to differ greatly from it. As much as I respect Lenin, considering him to be the only Marxist after Engels and The Man Himself to have made theoretical contributions worthy of being considered cannon (specifically, I think his theory of imperialism completed classical Marxism), an indigenous American Marxist movement would have learned more from Luxembourg than Lenin. > 1. We would evolve a somewhat different assessment of political fascism > since the first successful fascist movement took place in America. I don't know if we're on the same page on this at all, but I see fascism as a phenomenon that's mostly remained foreign to USAmerica, to this day. We had an indigenous American Far-Right movement, an ideology based on the supremely of one race over others, long before Mussolini and Hitler. More importantly, we've never had a situation where our bourgeoisie has been threatened enough by a revolutionary proletariat to have any need for fascism. We've had sympathies among the elite, and sympathies among the most creatively ideological racists for fascism, but never really a truly, substantial fascist movement. Allegations that, say, the Tea Parties are fascist are delusional. To reiterate: our far-right is indigenous, not derived from the fascist movement in Europe. > 4. We would most certainly possess an entirely different assessment of the > path of development of the proletarian movement because our country never > evolved a social democratic movement or political trend. What is called the > "lesser of two evils" syndrome is really a peculiar development in America > without a social democratic body politic. Social Democracy evolved against > the backdrop of the break down of economic and political feudalism and the > need of the rising bourgeoisie to enlist the proletarian masses in support > of its revolution against old feudal production relations. The sooner we > stop trying to shoehorn American history into European political frameworks > the better. I don't really have anything more to add to the rest of this post. I'd just like to state that strongly I agree with the basic sentiment. Aimless rambling over, Jeff ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
