American Revolutionary Legacy

[Marxist Napoleon]

Americans seem to be a patriotic people, often blindly so. Can we use some aspects of the American Revolution to appeal to Americans' patriotic sentiments to advance the communist revolution? It seems like this is the only time period that we can use in our favor (other than the Civil War and the fight against fascism). Obviously, in modern Marxist terms, the American Revolution was an attempt for the domestic bourgeoisie to maintain power. But weren't there some illusions of democracy and egalitarianism? Were the Committees of Correspondence a legitimate form of grassroots democracy? Paine could be pretty radical at times, especially considering the thinkers of his day. Will Americans accept socialism if it means abandoning their past?

I have mixed feelings about the issue. On the one hand, we shouldn't admire reactionary movements for change. We have to remember that the "Revolution" concentrated wealth in the hands of the few and perpetuated slavery. On the other hand, republicanism was put into practice for the first time on a large scale, and the American people were given a sense of sovereignty and national dignity. It also showed how the poor can fight against the rich and win. Fidel, when he speaks of America, often looks up to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. Chavez looks to Bolivar even though he wasn't a socialist. How should we treat the revolutionary movements of the past, especially the American Revolution?

[Faux Real]

How should we treat the revolutionary movements of the past, especially the American Revolution?In the same manner which the people of the revolutionary struggle that ended the unrepresentative imperialist English monarchy. Workers of today need to toss the chains from their new unrepresentative ruling class, the bourgeoisie, to go beyond a current political trend that does not serve anyones interest but their bourgeois itself.

The problem is, most Americans see representative republicanism as something natural: something that's always been there ever since the country's independence, something that's made the country "great", something that's in its overall character, good. In essence, they think it's democracy.

It is the task of challenging those very ideals while at the same time pointing to what the "founding fathers" carried out against similar class elements. From the transition of feudalism to capitalism, we need to challenge their ideas about capitalism to make the transition to socialism, communism, anarchism, etc.

[La Comédie Noire]

the American Revolution was an attempt for the domestic bourgeoisie to maintain power.

Not "maintain power", seize power from the nation state of Britain.

We should treat them as Marxists have always treated them, as proof nothing changes without class conflict.

[PRC-UTE]

I believe the CPUSA tried to do exactly what you have said, so did the (DeLeonist) New Unionist Party to a lesser extent (rhetorically of course).

[Everyday Anarchy]

While I agree that there were many radical and progressive ideas present during the American Revolution (such as many of Paine's writings), we should be very careful when praising the war.

The American Revolution was supposedly to have been against non representative government, it was not against slavery or patriarchy. The Revolution was waged only in the interests of protestant white landowning men. Conditions hardly changed for blacks, women, and the poor.

[spartan]

The American revolution was Libertarian inspired so it will be hard to get anything "progressive" from it to use in our propaganda.

Libertarianism and Socialism are direct opposites with the only similarities being in how both ideologies feel that their respective systems give people the most freedom.

[Killer Enigma]

The American Revolution was supposedly to have been against non representative government, it was not against slavery or patriarchy. The Revolution was waged only in the interests of protestant white landowning men. Conditions hardly changed for blacks, women, and the poor.
Many of the delegates at the Continental Congress and later the Constitutional Convention recognized that in order to secure a representative democracy independent of British (and foreign) rule, they would need to sacrifice some of the principles of liberty. We view their decision as ludicrous with a 21st-century lens but had they not, it is unlikely that slavery would have been abolished as quickly as it was (less than a century after the founding of the nation).

Americans love tradition and so I affirm the original question posed in this thread. One objective which must be accomplished by American socialists will be to get the public to view the Civil War as a revolutionary war. I was always impressed with Trotsky's take on the question in Terrorism and Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch04.htm). Indeed, the Civil War ought to be seen as the second revolutionary war because it abolished private slave property.

Quite frankly, I am appalled that there are actually people on this board who represent the American "revolutionary left" who castigate Lincoln unjustly, calling him a tyrant, a racist, etc. The American left is blessed to have a figure such as Lincoln whom we can point to as pursuing the provisions set forth by Karl Marx. Eugene Debs was a great man but he doesn't move an argument along quite as well as a widely-lauded figure such as President Abraham Lincoln, whom everyone is taught to love from primary school onwards. Simply because he isn't taught from a Marxist perspective means nothing. I have won many arguments by using Lincoln and his role during the Civil War in abolishing private slave property as an example of Marxism being successfully applied in America.

[Killer Enigma]

The American revolution was Libertarian inspired so it will be hard to get anything "progressive" from it to use in our propaganda.

Libertarianism and Socialism are direct opposites with the only similarities being in how both ideologies feel that their respective systems give people the most freedom.
The more apt term, as it describes the libertarian movement of the 18th century, would be a "liberal [democratic]" revolution, but you are correct in terms of analysis. I have always found that the American revolution can be used as a means of affirming Marx's materialist conception of history, proving the dialectical progression of class struggle.

Of course federalism will be a necessary component to any American socialist movement and so there is a lot of value in hearkening back to the first revolutionary war.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:17 pm
The American revolution was Libertarian inspired so it will be hard to get anything "progressive" from it to use in our propaganda.

Libertarianism and Socialism are direct opposites with the only similarities being in how both ideologies feel that their respective systems give people the most freedom.
You do realise that Libertarianism was originally a term used for parts of the revolutionary left in Europe, right? It wasn't used in the US until much laster, when some liberal hijacked the term. Outside of America, Libertarians are revolutionary leftists.