Marx and Engels: Apologists for Imperialism?

[Os Cangaceiros]

In America, we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and we have rejoiced in it. It is...an advance when a country which has hitherto been...perpetually rent with civil wars, and completely hindered in its developement...is forcibly drawn into the historical process. It is to the interest of its own developement that Mexico will in future be placed under the tutelage of the United States. The evolution of the whole of America will profit by the fact that the United States, by the possession of California, obtains command of the Pacific.

Friedrich Engels, "The Movements of 1847".

Now, as any student of American history knows, rarely has there been such an act of naked, unashamed imperialism as the Mexican American war (although the annexation of Hawaii comes to mind as well). Polk assumed power just itching to spread the United States not just south, but also north as well. The war began after a blatant provocation by the armed forces of the US into Mexican territory.

[MT5678]

M and E were referring to the advancements of relations of production. The problem with M and E was that they were far too detereministic. They thought that as there would be an advancement in the stages of production, the revolution would inexorably come closer and closer. To this end, they supported advancements into industrial capitalism.

I say this as an anarchistic fellow, but I have no dislike of Marx or Engels.

[KC]

You of course missed the footnote explaining this quote:


In assessing these events in his article Engels proceeded from the general conception that it was progressive for patriarchal and feudal countries to be drawn into the orbit of capitalist relations because, he thought, this accelerated the creation of preconditions tor a proletarian revolution (see Note 252). In subsequent years however, he and Marx investigated the consequences of colonial conquests and the subjugation of backward countries by large states in all their aspects. In particular, having made a thorough study of the US policy in regard to Mexico and other countries of the American continent, Marx in an article, “The Civil War in the North America” (1861), described it as expansion in the interests of the then dominant slave-owning oligarchy of the Southern States and of the bourgeois elements in the North which supported it, whose overt aim was to seize new territories for spreading slavery.


M and E were referring to the advancements of relations of production. The problem with M and E was that they were far too detereministic. They thought that as there would be an advancement in the stages of production, the revolution would inexorably come closer and closer. To this end, they supported advancements into industrial capitalism.

You should read the footnote as well.

[MT5678]

"accelerated the preconditions for a proletarian revolution".

That's pretty much what I said.

[spartan]

When compared to primitive and Feudal societies, that practice an un-Capitalist mode of production (That cant create the material conditions necessary for Socialism), Capitalism is a progressive force as Capitalism is the only system that has a mode of production that can create the material conditions necessary for Socialism.

Capitalist Imperialism is another matter entirely and is only acceptable when it aims to spread into regions that have no Capitalist mode of production and wishes to develop them to gain more wealth (Thus creating a Capitalist mode of production and the material conditions necessary for Socialism in that region).

[TC]

In America, we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and we have rejoiced in it. It is...an advance when a country which has hitherto been...perpetually rent with civil wars, and completely hindered in its developement...is forcibly drawn into the historical process. It is to the interest of its own developement that Mexico will in future be placed under the tutelage of the United States. The evolution of the whole of America will profit by the fact that the United States, by the possession of California, obtains command of the Pacific.

Friedrich Engels, "The Movements of 1847".

Now, as any student of American history knows, rarely has there been such an act of naked, unashamed imperialism as the Mexican American war (although the annexation of Hawaii comes to mind as well). Polk assumed power just itching to spread the United States not just south, but also north as well. The war began after a blatant provocation by the armed forces of the US into Mexican territory.


As anyone who actually read 'The Movements of 1847 would know, you took that entirely out of context and quoted it deliberately in such a way as to obscure what Engels was actually saying.


The very next sentince which you ommited reads:


But again we ask: “Who is going to profit immediately by the war?” The bourgeoisie alone. The North Americans acquire new regions in California and New Mexico for the creation of fresh capital, that is, for calling new bourgeois into being, and enriching those already in existence; for all capital created today flows into the hands of the bourgeoisie. And what about the proposed cut through the Tehuantepec isthmus?[284] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/volume06/footnote.htm#284) Who is likely to gain by that? Who else but the American shipping owners? Rule over the Pacific, who will gain by that but these same shipping owners? The new customers for the products of industry, customers who will come into being in the newly acquired territories — who will supply their needs? None other than the American manufacturers. Thus also in America the bourgeoisie has made great advances, and if its representatives now oppose the war, that only proves that they fear that these advances have in some ways been bought too dear.

So go back and try to find another way to slander Marx and Engels.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As anyone who actually read 'The Movements of 1847 would know, you took that entirely out of context and quoted it deliberately in such a way as to obscure what Engels was actually saying.


The very next sentince which you ommited reads:



So go back and try to find another way to slander Marx and Engels.

And I would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddlin' kids!

I guess a foreign army running rampant down the coastline, raping and pillaging as they go is all fine n' dandy, as long as it makes possible the glorious revolution possible. Thanks for setting me straight, guys!

[funkmasterswede]

And I would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddlin' kids!

I guess a foreign army running rampant down the coastline, raping and pillaging as they go is all fine n' dandy, as long as it makes possible the glorious revolution possible. Thanks for setting me straight, guys!

You have to realize that Marxists do not have a morality in any real sense of the word. Marx given his rejection of human nature and thus essentialism, ultimately placed himself into spot in which he could say that the bourgeois were exploiting and stealing "surplus value" from the proleteriat, but any judgment that came after was determined and reflected particular class interest and thus was historically contingent and did not reflect any sense of abstract justice. I simply don't understand why proleterian justice is superior to bourgeois justice if both are a reflection of class interest. This is why Marx has to be understand as someone saying that socialism is inevitable rather than moral in an absolute sense.

Hurray, another Agorist on the forum though.

[IcarusAngel]

The main point of the thread was clearly refuted.


Hurray, another Agorist on the forum though.

Isn't agorism just an attempt to provide a left-wing, "anarchist" defense of capitalism? That's what I see in it.

However, even the early individualists, proclaimed to be "Agorists" by some current anarchists, rejected wage slavery, as shown in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_capitalism) (Tucker, Spooner, etc.).

[funkmasterswede]

The main point of the thread was clearly refuted.



Isn't agorism just an attempt to provide a left-wing, "anarchist" defense of capitalism? That's what I see in it.

However, even the early individualists, proclaimed to be "Agorists" by some current anarchists, rejected wage slavery, as shown in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_capitalism) (Tucker, Spooner, etc.).

If you want to apply vulgar marxist analysis, then yes...I am pretty sure Samuel Konkin said "zomg, I need to defend capitalism, but in a way that provides a possible methodology to overthrow the state" Or maybe it was just bourgeois false consciousness or perhaps, due to his mind, his genetics he came up with an idea that was not due to false consciousness or his bourgeois roots.


Tucker and Spooner are great, but their ideas their economics ideas are based on the LTV which I reject for numerous reasons. I also enjoy Kevin Carson's work, even though he is still working within the framework of the LTV. In many ways they fit under the agorist or voluntaryist banner in the same way that someone who favours georgist principles in terms of land ownership (like myself) is an agorist or a voluntaryist. Anarchism implies pluralism and I see no reason why harder proprietarian's cannot co exist with softer proprietarians.