Gunpowder and slavery

[Anonymous]

Gerald Horne’s main drive in “The Counter-Revolution of 1776” is that the American Revolution was actually a counter revolution directed against the real revolutionaries – the *abolitionist* British Empire (not slave owners versus slave traders). It’s an anti-Marxist position. Marxists view 1776 as a historically progressive bourgeois democratic revolution. Of course, both points of view are wrong. Viewing the creation of the USA, a bastion, throughout its life, of owning class privilege, as a positive development is ludicrous. On the other hand, making race, divorced from class, the focus, as Horne does, is an idealistic conceit, if an understandable one. The real drive in history is always economic – if you want to know the truth look at whose pocket the money’s going in. However, since the British Empire is dead and gone and the American Empire, the self same state set up in 1776, now the foremost proponent and practitioner of fundamentalist capitalism, is very much alive and kicking shit across the world, I, for one, heap praise upon Professor Horne’s noble sable brow. Yes, Professor, an irredeemably evil racist state from its birth.
an odd mistake for you to make Alma, since you posted about that book back in the summer.

——————————————————————————————–

You jump too easily into a conclusion without checking the facts. I publish many articles, books and commentaries but it does not mean that I support them, I can also publish a book written by Donald Trump to bring out certain ideas and it does not mean that I support him, the other question is have you read the books of Horne, or are just repeating the stands of the US Trotskyists ? The stalinists call Pettit bourgeoise to any conception that is in accordance with their own conceptions, they are still living in the XVIII century

I publish articles written by the Left communists but it does not mean that I support Leninism, or the so called soviet revolution which in reality was a coup d’tat

The so called American revolution was not a revolutionary act, as well the other revolutions in Latin America they were not revolutionaries either, the Trotskyists and the DeLeonists are the ones saying that the American revolution was revolutionary and they even support the constitutions and the so called founders fathers which were a group of slave drivers.

George Washington wanted to invade Haiti to continue his trade deal in the island and to avoid the influence of the Haitians slaves on the US Slaves due to the fact that their ideas was being spread thru parts of Latin America, and it was more progressive than Simon Bolivar and the Great Colombia

There are many Marxist that do not have agreeable conceptions about the American revolution, and some consider that the Haitian revolution was more genuine than the American revolution because it was a revolt conducted by slaves

There were many black slaves who took arms along with the British and with the French because they consider that the American slave masters were their real enemies, as well Inkas and Aztec took side with the Spanish soldiers because they were exploited by their own internal rulers, there were class division among them

Slavery was not only a racial issues, it was an economic issue and it was a prevailing way to produce profits and it did produce large profits to the US ruling class, and the British in the Caribbeans islands. Muslims were also involved in the slave trade

The thesis of Horne in one particular book only is that the English were going to emit a decree to eliminate slavery in the USA because they were planning to continue their efforts in the Caribbean slave trades, and the American slave traders did not want that decree to take place, in that particular revolt neither black slaves, Indians and many poor white did not participate on its realization

[Anonymous]

https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0067/1563335.pdf

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/03/18/horn-m18.html

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/14/revo-j14.html

The Soviets and the Trotskyists ( one section ) on the American ( USA ) revolution

[Anonymous]

https://politicaleducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CLR_James_The_Black_Jacobins.pdf The Black Jacobin written by CLR James, this is a different type of revolution

On the Haitian anti slavery revolution. Haiti was one of the most advanced and economic progressive country in Latin America and the first establishment of capitalist production, it has been placed on a second level because it would shaded Simon Bolivar and the Great Colombia which was not an anti slavery revolution. Mexico did eliminate slavery by decree way before the USA. CLR James a Trotskyists

This is another analysis from a different point of view. He debunks the myth about the founding of the Dominican Republic which did not have an anti slavery revolution like Haiti, another historian known as Jimenez Grunion debunk that myth also, and he was a Leninists and all the left-wingers were attacking him because they were nationalists

[KAZ]

Slavery was not only a racial issue, it was an economic issue

[KAZ]

BBCodes. corblimey. never evened heard of thems before. like timetravel. back to the nineties innit (the bit i slept through). anyway, fixed the sentence for you (not very well as them BBCodes is a bit crap).

slavery. an economic issue. the american revolution – a clash between rival capitalisms. just like the american civil war. progressive? proschmessive. nowt to choose between them.

[Anonymous]

Slavery was not only a racial issue, it was an economic issue
————————————————————————

Next time, write you own expression, do not alter somebody else writing

[Young Master Smeet]

This is a nice write-up of the exploration of the Lloyds archives

“White and Seth estimate that in the 1790s, insurance for the slave economy made up 41% of the broader marine insurance industry.” and “The agreements fix the value of an enslaved person at £45, which works out at £3,454.25 in today’s money. They also feature a clause unique to slaving voyages: underwriters would cover damage to the ship or any devaluation of enslaved people (including death) due to insurrection.” (I’m not sure if it was entirely unique, the model was borrowed from the risk of stampeding livestock, but, as the article says, recognising that insurrection aboard ship was a risk is an acknowledgement that there was something worth rebelling against and some part of the human agency of slavery’s victims.

[KAZ]

couldn’t have been that important as ten years later it was extinct.

[Author]

Posts