On May 22, 2026, David North issued "Lincoln and the Enduring Legacy of America's Second Revolution: A Reply to a Critic of the 'Letter from Afar'," a significant document that defends historical Marxism, critiques sectarian pseudo-radicalism, and clearly states the SEP's current political stance. I admit it took me some time to grasp the implications of the "Letter from Afar fully." If written by a human, it's an outstanding and brilliant piece. If created by Artificial Intelligence, then all praise to the creator.
North’s commentary on Lincoln — a "letter from
afar" reflecting on the current American political crisis from Lincoln's
historical perspective was widely received, mostly positively but also with
some criticism. Some readers believed that referencing a bourgeois politician
was a concession to nationalism and bourgeois democracy. North's response
directly addresses these critics and outlines a thorough Marxist interpretation
of Lincoln, the Civil War, and the links between bourgeois-democratic
revolutions and the socialist movement.
It should be stated clearly from the beginning that it takes
either bravery or foolishness to confront North on Lincoln and The Civil War as
the Second American Revolution. Aside from Leon Trotsky, North is arguably the
most significant Marxist of this century and the last. Like a fine wine, he
only improves with age.
North's core argument is clear: the Civil War was
essentially the second American Revolution, marking a global historical event
through the violent end of the slave power and abolition of chattel slavery.
Rather than viewing Lincoln as separate from socialist tradition.
North cites Marx, who in 1865 praised Lincoln as "one
of the rare men who succeed in becoming great, without ceasing to be
good," describing him as someone who carried out his "titanic work as
humbly as Heaven-born rulers do little things with the agility of a
giant." Lenin, in his 1918 "Letter to American Workers," also
referenced the revolutionary deeds of 1776 and the Civil War. Trotsky studied
Grant and Sherman’s campaigns during the Russian Civil War, not merely as a historical
interest but because he saw these struggles as Foundational to the development
of the modern American working class
The critic attempted to contrast Lincoln with Trotsky using
a rhetorical analogy: "Lincoln died that the slaves might be free — in and
with capitalism; Trotsky died that workers might be free — through
socialism." North counters this by stating that this analogy overlooks the
true historical relationship between the bourgeois-democratic revolutions
and the socialist movement that followed. Viewing Lincoln as unrelated to
socialist ideals is rejecting the approaches of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and
Trotsky, favouring instead a sectarian view that isolates the working class
from the broader history of revolutionary struggles against feudalism, slavery,
and absolutism.
1619 Project
North's defence of Lincoln directly supports the WSWS's
ongoing campaign against the New York Times' 1619 Project. This
initiative seeks to strip Lincoln of his status as a revered progressive figure
and to replace class analysis with racial mythology. The WSWS, working with
notable historians like James McPherson, Gordon Wood, James Oakes, and Victoria
Bynum, defends the democratic and revolutionary core of the American Revolution
and Civil War against this misrepresentation. The Lincoln letter continues this
effort, now criticizing Trump's fascistic oligarchy, which threatens birthright
citizenship—the achievement of the Civil War protected under the 14th
Amendment—and the broader democratic rights of the working class.
One of the most notable parts of North's response involves
the critic's assertion that the WSWS "is not a website for literature,
novels, or literary experiments" and that "because Marxism is
scientific, metaphors are rarely used when discussing the class struggle."
North strongly counters this narrow view: Marx's prose — from the opening of
the Manifesto, the Eighteenth Brumaire, to the passages on commodity
fetishism in Capital — isn't just decoration; it closely intertwines
literary flair with scientific analysis. Trotsky was a master of
twentieth-century prose style. Lenin’s writings are marked by sharp wit. The
idea that the working class should be spoken to in a "flat, bureaucratic
language" has no basis in Marxism; it stems from Stalinist cultural
decline, which the WSWS openly rejects.
North clearly explains why the Lincoln letter was written
and its purpose. As the U.S. marks 250 years since the Declaration of
Independence, the working class faces a historic challenge from a reactionary
capitalist oligarchy with overt fascistic traits, threatening democratic
rights. In this context, referencing Lincoln and the revolutionary heritage of
1776 and 1861–65 is not nationalism. Instead, it aims to activate and deepen
the working class's democratic beliefs, guiding them toward independent political
action needed to oppose the oligarchy on a socialist platform.
The SEP and WSWS will be marking the 250th anniversary of
the American Revolution with an online webinar, among the themes of which will
be Lincoln's place in American and world history as "the man who carried
through the unfinished business of 1776, and whose work it now falls to the
working class to complete on an international socialist foundation."
