Please have Horne on to talk about this. I would LOVE to hear his perspective. I also think conflating of Horne’s argument and the 1619 project to be problematic. 1619 hijacks and dilutes his argument for liberal purposes.
I’ve been thinking a lot about 1776 recently, in much less “universal” terms than expressed here by Evi here. I actually believe we need to understand that revolution in contradiction to the Western European civilisation and tradition. The American revolution was in many ways the ultimate rebellion to the most inhumane system know to human history. It was the Europeans saying NO MORE to feudalism, which then managed to spread to France later(which might have been distorted by the brits in revenge against their support to the rebels during the war of independence). It must be understood within that light. And it came to inspire other revolutions around the world later on, yes, but not because of a “universal nature” of that project, but rather because it’s all rooted in the contradictions of dealing with the European colonial system(systemic genocide), which reaches all the way back to the Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire is full of religious delusions. But in many ways, what follows 1776 is worse and self contradictory. Like if you see a lot of the letters people like the founding fathers would write, they’d cry of being in a state of slavery while holding and expanding their slave holdings. Not to mention the fear many expressed after the Haitian revolution. Feudalism is the holdover and follow up of the collapsing Roman Empire and the social relations it ripened and the contradictions therein. But you’re right to point out that these aren’t universalizing, as capitalism is more and more subsumptive than universalizing (i.e. the contradiction between universal subjects and modernization, and the advent of imperialism which actively seeks to crush universalising impulses through strengthening extractive relationships like venerating and strengthening chiefdoms and petty tyrants and arresting bourgeois relations in a state of perpetual smallness in the midst of monopolization). But also, the aftermath of 1776 is the expansion of the southern slave political economy often in conflict with the northern more free labor (including for former slaves), mercantile and finance capital relationships. And it’s of course after 1776 that slavery expands greatly in the south, and withers in the north, so it’s a very uneven revolution, but certainly transformative in the Eurocentric perspective, if we consider the relations and political arrangements and struggles between the emerging bourgeois social relations, and the reshaping of feudal and religious arrangements following the collapsing Roman Empire.
We could cut Arendt a little slack when it comes to sources of information. Her Origins book came out in 1951. The war had ended only 6 years before and Stalin was still alive. We know so much more than she did. One can always nitpick but her book is still a worthy read by someone who almost didn't make it out of Europe in 1940. One still thinks of Benjamin killing himself at the Spanish frontier. Excellent study session.
It appears Losorudo misunderstands althusser/balibar reading in Reading Capital. They r not advancing a purely economist analytic, at all. Althusser was exactly highly critical of arendts capitalist realism AND then later economism in the leading french comm party
Please have Horne on to talk about this. I would LOVE to hear his perspective.
I also think conflating of Horne’s argument and the 1619 project to be problematic. 1619 hijacks and dilutes his argument for liberal purposes.
Loved Evi’s last comment 🎉
Like these ...first exposure was in South India so not quite the same downward trajectory 😊
I’ve been thinking a lot about 1776 recently, in much less “universal” terms than expressed here by Evi here. I actually believe we need to understand that revolution in contradiction to the Western European civilisation and tradition. The American revolution was in many ways the ultimate rebellion to the most inhumane system know to human history. It was the Europeans saying NO MORE to feudalism, which then managed to spread to France later(which might have been distorted by the brits in revenge against their support to the rebels during the war of independence). It must be understood within that light. And it came to inspire other revolutions around the world later on, yes, but not because of a “universal nature” of that project, but rather because it’s all rooted in the contradictions of dealing with the European colonial system(systemic genocide), which reaches all the way back to the Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire is full of religious delusions. But in many ways, what follows 1776 is worse and self contradictory. Like if you see a lot of the letters people like the founding fathers would write, they’d cry of being in a state of slavery while holding and expanding their slave holdings. Not to mention the fear many expressed after the Haitian revolution. Feudalism is the holdover and follow up of the collapsing Roman Empire and the social relations it ripened and the contradictions therein. But you’re right to point out that these aren’t universalizing, as capitalism is more and more subsumptive than universalizing (i.e. the contradiction between universal subjects and modernization, and the advent of imperialism which actively seeks to crush universalising impulses through strengthening extractive relationships like venerating and strengthening chiefdoms and petty tyrants and arresting bourgeois relations in a state of perpetual smallness in the midst of monopolization). But also, the aftermath of 1776 is the expansion of the southern slave political economy often in conflict with the northern more free labor (including for former slaves), mercantile and finance capital relationships. And it’s of course after 1776 that slavery expands greatly in the south, and withers in the north, so it’s a very uneven revolution, but certainly transformative in the Eurocentric perspective, if we consider the relations and political arrangements and struggles between the emerging bourgeois social relations, and the reshaping of feudal and religious arrangements following the collapsing Roman Empire.
We could cut Arendt a little slack when it comes to sources of information. Her Origins book came out in 1951. The war had ended only 6 years before and Stalin was still alive. We know so much more than she did. One can always nitpick but her book is still a worthy read by someone who almost didn't make it out of Europe in 1940. One still thinks of Benjamin killing himself at the Spanish frontier. Excellent study session.
It appears Losorudo misunderstands althusser/balibar reading in Reading Capital. They r not advancing a purely economist analytic, at all. Althusser was exactly highly critical of arendts capitalist realism AND then later economism in the leading french comm party