File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0106, message 123


Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Thomas Seay <entheogens-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: American Civil War


Info, you state that during the American Civil War:

<< to the extent 
> that they remained under 
> the control of the bourgeoisie it did become just a
> case of bourgeoisie 
> versus bourgeoisie.>>


Yes, of course it was the bourgeoisie vs. bourgeoisie.
I would not argue against that.  My point was that the
resolution of the war brought about the triumph of
industrial capitalism (that the North
represented)...this liberated the means of production
from the fetters of an antiquated regressive mode of
production (that of the slave plantation system). 
This was OBJECTIVELY progressive (no matter the
particularities of the various individual players).

It occurs to me that you believe that there are only
two systems that could ever exist (1) socialism and
(2) everything else.  If something isn't socialist it
must not be progressive, no matter what the historical
context it appears in.  This way of thinking does not
take into account the historical development of the
productive forces (leading up to socialism) but looks
at it from some sort of purely moral perspective
(there are the bad guys, the ruling class, and the
good guys ...the laborers)  It makes no distinction
between classes and the various social strata  in
history.

According to this point of view, we could have had a
socialist revolution in the middle ages, if some
"good" person would have just thought of it.

Thomas Seay


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005