Shopping cartHistorical Materialism
Volumes & issues:
-
The Fracturing of LGBT Identities under Neoliberal Capitalism
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
Abstract
Historians have linked the emergence of contemporary lesbian/gay identities to the development of capitalism. A materialist approach should also look at different forms of sexual identity, and their connections with specific phases of capitalist development. Marxist long-wave theory can help us understand how the decline of Fordism contributed to shifts in LGBT identities, speeding the consolidation of gay identity while fostering the rise of alternative sexual identities. These alternative identities, sometimes defined as ‘queer’, characterised by sexual practices that are still stigmatised, by explicit power-differentials and above all by gender-nonconformity, are particularly common among young and disadvantaged working-class strata. The growing diversity of identities is a challenge to any gay universalism that neglects class, gender, sexual, racial/ethnic and other differences, to the currently dominant forms of lesbian/gay organising, and ultimately to the prevailing division of human beings into gay and straight.
1
-
A Symposium on the American Civil War and Slavery
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
Abstract
On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the American Civil War, Historical Materialism has brought together some of the most significant Marxist scholars working in this area to debate the issues. This text introduces some of the questions raised by the Civil War and Southern slavery for Marxists and introduces the essays that follow.
-
Towards a Bourgeois Revolution? Explaining the American Civil War
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
Abstract
This paper introduces arguments from Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic
1
to suggest that the Civil War arose ultimately because of class-conflict between on the one hand, Southern slaves and their masters and, on the other, Northern workers and their employers. It does not, however, suggest that either in the North or the South these conflicts were on the point of erupting into revolution. On the contrary, they were relatively easily containable. However, harmony within each section (North and South) could be secured only at the cost of intersectional conflict, conflict which would finally erupt into civil war. The Civil War was a ‘bourgeois revolution’ not only because it destroyed slavery, an essentially precapitalist system of production, in the United States but also because it resulted in the enthronement of Northern values, with the normalisation of wage-labour at their core.
-
Social-Property Relations, Class-Conflict and the Origins of the US Civil War: Towards a New Social Interpretation*
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
Abstract
The origins of the US Civil War have long been a central topic of debate among historians, both Marxist and non-Marxist. John Ashworth’s Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic is a major Marxian contribution to a social interpretation of the US Civil War. However, Ashworth’s claim that the War was the result of sharpening political and ideological – but not social and economic – contradictions and conflicts between slavery and capitalism rests on problematic claims about the rôle of slave-resistance in the dynamics of plantation-slavery, the attitude of Northern manufacturers, artisans, professionals and farmers toward wage-labour, and economic restructuring in the 1840s and 1850s. An alternative social explanation of the US Civil War, rooted in an analysis of the specific path to capitalist social-property relations in the US, locates the War in the growing contradiction between the social requirements of the expanded reproduction of slavery and capitalism in the two decades before the War.
-
The American Civil War Considered as a Bourgeois Revolution
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
Abstract
The discussion of the American Civil War as a bourgeois revolution, reopened by John Ashworth’s recent work, needs to be based on a more explicit conceptualisation of what the category does, and does not, involve. This essay offers one such conceptualisation. It then deals with two key issues raised by the process of bourgeois revolution in the United States: the relationship between the War of Independence and the Civil War, and whether the nature of the South made conflict unavoidable. It then argues that the American Revolution is unique for two reasons: the non-feudal nature of Southern society and the fact that the Northern industrial bourgeoisie, unlike their European contemporaries, were still prepared to behave in a revolutionary way.
-
Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln: A Curious Convergence*
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
Abstract
Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln held very different views on the ‘social question’. This essay explores the way in which they converged in their estimation of slavery during the course of the Civil War; Marx was an ardent abolitionist, and Lincoln came to see this position as necessary. It is argued that the rôle of runaway slaves – called ‘contraband’ – and German-revolutionary ’48ers played a significant rôle in the radicalisation of Lincoln and the direction of the War.
-
Marx and Engels on the US Civil War: The ‘Materialist Conception of History’ in Action
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
Abstract
Marx’s analysis, supplemented by that of Engels, of the US Civil War is as instructive, if not more, as any of their writings to illustrate their ‘materialist conception of history’. Because the American experience figured significantly in the young Marx’s path to communist conclusions, the outbreak of the War in 1861 obligated him to devote his full attention to its course. His application of their method allowed him to see more accurately the course of the War than his partner. Also, he was able to see what President Abraham Lincoln had to do, that is, to convert the War from one to end secession to one to overthrow slavery, before the President himself. Despite its contradictory outcome, Marx’s expectation that the War would put the US working class on terra firma for the first time was justified.
-
The Civil War and Slavery: A Response
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
Abstract
The four essays by Ashworth, Blackburn, Nimtz and Post all make important contributions to our understanding of the causes and consequences of the American Civil War, and to modern analysis of these questions within a Marxist tradition. Although they differ among themselves on key issues, they direct attention to problems too often neglected by other historians: the rôle of class-conflict within North and South in the coming of the War; the part played by slave-resistance in the sectional conflict; the nature of the economic relationship between slave and free economies; and a shift in control of the national state as an enduring result of the conflict.
-
Karl Marx and Contemporary Philosophy, edited by Andrew Chitty and Martin McIvor, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
Abstract
This essay is a review of Karl Marx and Contemporary Philosophy. While the text will provide even knowledgeable Marxist readers with new insights on key texts and concepts in Marx, it nevertheless fails to intervene in crucial contemporary philosophical debates. The book is concerned less with the contemporary significance of Marxist philosophy as philosophy and more with re-reading classical Marxist texts in a contemporary context. This job it does well, but leaves the more important question of what Marxists have to say about fundamental philosophical problems today unaddressed for the most part.
-
Envisioning Real Utopias, Erik Olin Wright, London: Verso, 2010
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
Abstract
In this review, I argue that Erik Olin Wright’s Envisioning Real Utopias is necessary reading for anyone interested in thinking through the possibilities of creating noncapitalist ways of organising economic and social life in the world today. However, I also raise questions about Wright’s deterministic interpretation of Marx’s critique of political economy, his relative neglect of class-analysis, and his non-Gramscian conception of the relationship between the state, economy, and civil society.
-
Social Formation
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
-
Notes on Contributors
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
-
Back Issues
- + Show Description - Hide Description
-
back to top