What is your opinion of the American Revolutionary War my opinion is that while many

[tradeunionsupporter]

What is your opinion of the American Revolutionary War my opinion is that while many Americans think that the American Colonists and George Washington were heroes for fighting a war against the British but in my opinion the American Revolutionary War when it was won America just took the American Indian's or the Native American's land they became an empire which they themselves fought the British empire they became an American empire in my opinion it is no different from the Boer War in South Africa the White South African Colonists got their Independence than started to oppress the Black South Africans the Zionists in Palestine got their Independence from the British and started to oppress the Palestinians what do you think ?

[Revolution starts with U]

That sounds about right. There is a lot of good to be learned there. But people forget what happened in the aftermath.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

It was merely American bourgeoisie at war with British bourgeoisie from what I can see.

[tradeunionsupporter]

If you don't mind me asking could you please explain how the war was
It was merely American bourgeoisie at war with British bourgeoisie in my opinion it was also the American empire at war with the British empire. Empires fight each other for power to oppress the people it always happens the American Revolutionary War was no different America was and is an Empire I know you all already know this but many Americans have this belief in Nationalism and Patriotism.

[Revolution starts with U]

That essentially means the same thing

[Omsk]

It was a war in which an imperialistic state went on its path of downfall,and the other started to rise.Quite simple actualy.Personaly i have no interest in this subject,nor do i care about America.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I know that in the book A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn does a great job analyzing the war. Essentially, the people wanted independence as well and a far more directly democratic government than the one that was established. However, the revolution was highjacked by American Bourgeoisie and allowed them to push competing British business out of the region. Over time, the American government became more and more oppressive under the control of the American upper class. In respect to the American people, it replaced one group of rulers with another.

[#FF0000]

In respect to the American people, it replaced one group of rulers with another.

Yes, but this was in 1776, back when nationalism was actually a progressive force.

The American War for Independence was a good thing.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I also do not care about America I just want to point out that America is not the good guy America is an evil empire. the American War for Independence was not a good thing if you were an Native American/American Indian or a Black Slave or Mexican America took Mexico's land too.

[#FF0000]

I also do not care about America I just want to point out that America is not the good guy America is an evil empire.

But back in 1776, Britain was the "evil empire". The war for independence was a blow against England, you see?

[resurgence]

I cant post links yet but I recommend people google J. Sakai "Settlers". It is a very controversial book that makes a lot of people very uncomfortable. He has a lot of interesting things to say about this period.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Ok I see your point now I agree on that the British empire was evil and that it was good that they lost wars.

[L.A.P.]

I'm surprised that so many Marxists fail to truly look at the American Revolution from a Marxist perspective. Karl Marx said that the transition from feudalism to capitalism was a positive and revolutionary when the bourgeoisie overthrew the Monarchs and nobility. The American Revolution was a very positive thing and made a lot of progress even though we may look at it as ruler overthrowing other rulers, the first thing a Marxist should know is at that time capitalism was a revolutionary force that was making things better for people. Now that capitalism has reached its peak, it's time for socialism to replace capitalism just as capitalism replaced feudalism and communism will replace socialism. It's all about progress.

[IcarusAngel]

That's a bit out of context. Karl Marx also wrote that the "freedmen" became "sellers of themselves" that were robbed of "all their own means of production" by the capitalist state and thus lost "all the guarantees afforded by the old feudal arrangements." "And the history of this, their expropriation, is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire."

Some people on this forum, like the anti-environmentalist guy (I think we know who I mean) constantly say that Marx was pure pro-technology. This is somewhat true. He also said that technology in the hands of the elite could be used to oppress workers etc., standard leftist criticism. In the communist manifesto he writes "The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." He later writes that through the use of machinery and to division of labor workmen become merely "appendages of the machine" who are useful only so long as they contribute to profits.

Engles was even more condemning. Here is Engles on the matter:


"Before the introduction of machinery, the spinning and weaving of raw materials was carried on in the workingman's home. Wife and daughter spun the yarn that the father wove or that they sold, if he did not work it up himself. These weaver families lived in the country in the neighborhood of the towns, and could get on fairly well with their wages, because the home market was almost the only one and the crushing power of competition that came later, with the conquest of foreign markets and the extension of trade, did not yet press upon wages. There was, further, a constant increase in the demand for the home market, keeping pace with the slow increase in population and employing all the workers; and there was also the impossibility of vigorous competition of the workers among themselves, consequent upon the rural dispersion of their homes. So it was that the weaver was usually in a position to lay by something, and rent a little piece of land, that he cultivated in his leisure hours, of which he had as many as he chose to take, since he could weave whenever and as long as he pleased. True, he was a bad farmer and managed his land inefficiently, often obtaining but poor crops; nevertheless, he was no proletarian, he had a stake in the country, he was permanently settled, and stood one step higher in society than the English workman of today.
So the workers vegetated throughout a passably comfortable existence, leading a righteous and peaceful life in all piety and probity; and their material position was far better than that of their successors. They did not need to overwork; they did no more than they chose to do, and yet earned what they needed. They had leisure for healthful work in garden or field, work which, in itself, was recreation for them, and they could take part besides in the recreations and games of their neighbors, and all these games - bowling, cricket, football, etc., contributed to their physical health and vigor. They were, for the most part, strong, well-built people, in whose physique little or no difference from that of their peasant neighbors was discoverable. Their children grew up in the fresh country air, and, if they could help their parents at work, it was only occasionally; while of eight or twelve hours work for them there was no question. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...class/ch07.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch07.htm)



"The death-rate is kept so high chiefly by the heavy mortality among young children in the working-class. The tender frame of a child is least able to withstand the unfavourable influences of an inferior lot in life; the neglect to which they are often subjected, when both parents work or one is dead, avenges itself promptly, and no one need wonder that in Manchester, according to the report last quoted, more than fifty-seven per cent of the children of the working-class perish before the fifth year, while but twenty per cent of the children of the higher classes, and not quite. thirty-two per cent of the children of all classes in the country die under five years of age. [11] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch07.htm#11) The article of the Artisan, already several times referred to, furnishes exacter information on this point, by comparing the city death-rate in single diseases of children with the country death-rate, thus demonstrating that, in general, epidemics in Manchester and Liverpool are three times more fatal than in country districts; that affections of the nervous system are quintupled, and stomach troubles trebled, while deaths from affections of the lungs in cities are to those in the country as 2 1/2 to 1. Fatal cases of small-pox, measles, scarlet fever, and whooping cough, among small children, are four times more frequent; those of water on the brain are trebled, and convulsions ten times more frequent. To quote another acknowledged authority, I append the following table. Out of 10,000 persons there die"


From Havet:


The Industrial Revolution led to a population increase, but the chance of surviving childhood did not improve throughout the industrial revolution

I don't think we should glorify the industrial revolution all that much - as Marx and Engles certainly didn't think it was a complete improvement in all areas, and in some cases, for many people it was definitely worse than feudalism.

All that said, tradeunion, you should make a post on the CIVIL WAR. Marx also did some interesting journalism on that.

[IcarusAngel]

I know that in the book A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn does a great job analyzing the war. Essentially, the people wanted independence as well and a far more directly democratic government than the one that was established. However, the revolution was highjacked by American Bourgeoisie and allowed them to push competing British business out of the region. Over time, the American government became more and more oppressive under the control of the American upper class. In respect to the American people, it replaced one group of rulers with another.

Can you quote where he said this? I read that book perhaps almost over a decade ago but I don't remember him saying it exactly like that. Specifically this:


...the people wanted independence as well and a far more directly democratic government than the one that was established...

What I remember him saying was that many people were indifferent to the whole thing and large numbers of them had to be drafted into the American Revolution - something left out in many history books I do believe.

I'm sure many people volunteered, though I don't know the exact figures. Thousands of men volunteered in the North to put down the South, though.

[William Howe]

It wasn't really a war of 'tyrants versus heroes', more like 'disgruntled people an ocean away fighting other people an ocean away'. The worst we did to the colonists was tax them a bit higher than usual (these taxes only arose after we saved them from French invasion).

True, it was imperialists vs. non-imperialists, but for starters, the Revolution itself was led mainly by wealthy, imperialistic businessmen in the colonies, so you can't justify it as 'heroes fighting imperialists'. Secondly, we hadn't exactly 'tortured' the colonies under our rule. Rather, they had quite a large degree of autonomity until the taxes.

[Omsk]

Well,for non-imperialist's,the Americans sure started their own imperial program soon after they defeated the English.So much for a difference.The lesser evil replaced a greater evil only to grow into a grand ~flambe devil~ evil with a red tail and nuclear bombs.

[William Howe]

Plus, the way the Revolution has been distorted by American historians is also quite strange. What was in reality a general curbstomping until France intervened has been portrayed as a handful of farmers slaughtering 5,000,000 Redcoats then instantly winning freedom.

It's quite disrespectful to the country that created the Colonies in the first place and defended them in several wars.

[tradeunionsupporter]

True the American Colonies were founded and defended by the British.

[William Howe]

True the American Colonies were founded and defended by the British.

You have to remember, although yes, we Brits possessed imperialistic rule over the Colonies, it actually turned out for the better of them. Not only did they have almost total autonomity anyway, but we defended them numerous times from other powers with far more tyrannical governments. Many times, they came close to being taken over by France or Spain, absolute monarchies, and were saved time and again by us, allowing them to keep more democratic ideals. We sacrificed tens of thousands of men and massive amounts of funds over 2 centuries to keep our brethren across the pond alive, and they repay us with riots, protests, and revolution.

[hatzel]

You have to remember, although yes, we Brits possessed imperialistic rule over the Colonies, it actually turned out for the better of them. Not only did they have almost total autonomity anyway, but we defended them numerous times from other powers with far more tyrannical governments. Many times, they came close to being taken over by France or Spain, absolute monarchies, and were saved time and again by us, allowing them to keep more democratic ideals. We sacrificed tens of thousands of men and massive amounts of funds over 2 centuries to keep our brethren across the pond alive, and they repay us with riots, protests, and revolution.

...ahh...:confused:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Plus, the way the Revolution has been distorted by American historians is also quite strange. What was in reality a general curbstomping until France intervened has been portrayed as a handful of farmers slaughtering 5,000,000 Redcoats then instantly winning freedom.

In that kind of conflict how badly they were 'curb stomped' did not matter so much as they were still alive after each blow. Similarly the US military 'curb stomped' the fuck out of Vietnam, did it not?

I have to agree though many historians need to step back and forget their national pride.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I am very Anti American I think every good Socialist should be Anti American. America was founded on Capitalism Imperialism genocide slavery and on racism.

[Lt. Ferret]

so was the soviet union.

[danyboy27]

I am very Anti American I think every good Socialist should be Anti American. America was founded on Capitalism Imperialism genocide slavery and on racism.

america was founded on anti-imperialism.

Irony :D

[#FF0000]

so was the soviet union.

No it wasn't you silly goose.

[RGacky3]

so was the soviet union.

You do realize we can look things up right? If your gonna just type bullshit its not gonna work, because we have books and the internet.


I know that in the book A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn does a great job analyzing the war. Essentially, the people wanted independence as well and a far more directly democratic government than the one that was established. However, the revolution was highjacked by American Bourgeoisie and allowed them to push competing British business out of the region. Over time, the American government became more and more oppressive under the control of the American upper class. In respect to the American people, it replaced one group of rulers with another.

This is the best explination so far.

[Zav]

I approve of the Americans' removing themselves from the British Empire. Governments becoming corrupt and splitting into smaller groups will eventually lead to a Federalist system, after all.:)
I do not, however, approve of most of their actions, specifically their treatment of those they have deemed "savage" or otherwise different and their current policing/bullying of the world.

[ComradeMan]

What is your opinion of the American Revolutionary War my opinion is that while many Americans think that the American Colonists and George Washington were heroes for fighting a war against the British but in my opinion the American Revolutionary War when it was won America just took the American Indian's or the Native American's land they became an empire which they themselves fought the British empire they became an American empire in my opinion it is no different from the Boer War in South Africa the White South African Colonists got their Independence than started to oppress the Black South Africans the Zionists in Palestine got their Independence from the British and started to oppress the Palestinians what do you think ?

Well George Washington was basically English.

So a large number of English settlers rebelled against a German king, fought a war they didn't do so well in and reached a treaty because the British Government didn't have the money to continue and were more worried about the French, and when they "won" they became Americans, the bits that stayed "loyal" became Canada. :lol:. It's interesting that many Native Americans sided with the "British" too.

It seems to me that a lot of American "patriotism" is built up around the idea of the Americans fighting the British whereas in reality they "Americans" were "English/British" until they "defeated" a German king.:lol:

But really, it's silly to have an "opinion" about "good guys" and "bad guys" with these historical issues as the matters are never clear cut. Even the matter of the South African wars is difficult seeing as the Boer republics were slave states that the British would not tolerate and when they took over the Cape province by treaty with the Dutch they abolished slavery. On the other hand the mistreatment of the Boer civilians is well-known and a very cruel and dark chapter in British history.

What always seems to happen, in my opinion, is that the oppressed- once liberated- become oppressors, which draws me to the conclusion that human nature is fundamentally shitty at times and it makes no difference who the winners or losers were- it may well have been the same the other way around given half of a chance. Nevertheless, each situation has its differences and when the British, alone, resisted against the Nazis I don't think you could describe them as "evil"- as seems to be a fashion these days.

One member here hit the nail on the head with the class analysis- instead of viewing things as "nations" we ought to view these things as "national classes" and that puts a different perspective on things. The British did not oppress the Irish, the British ruling classes defeated the Irish ruling classes and continued class exploitation in favour of their own interests in Ireland.... etc etc etc.

As for whether it was a good thing or a bad thing- well, like somone once said about the French Revolution, it's too soon to tell. ;)

[RGacky3]

What always seems to happen, in my opinion, is that the oppressed- once liberated- become oppressors

So Blacks in the US own slaves? Is there reverse apartied in South Africa?

I'm not saying there are still problems, but your argument that liberation does'nt actually stop oppression is just rediculous.


which draws me to the conclusion that human nature is fundamentally shitty at times and it makes no difference who the winners or losers were- it may well have been the same the other way around given half of a chance.

Which is a shitty conclusion, what the proper conclusion should be is that concentrated power cuases oppression. The US created an Empire, but Canada did not ... Why is that? They were both Liberated, well, the US and its corporate elite has a lot of concentrated power, Canada does not.

[ComradeMan]

So Blacks in the US own slaves? Is there reverse apartied in South Africa?


Well I have heard a lot of people talking about affirmative action in South Africa, I have also heard that other "minorities" are not well looked after and of course the Khoi-San people of southern Africa in general have had a pretty raw deal from some of the "liberated" governments. In a wider sense some African countries have a very poor track record regarding the treatment of indigenous minorities such as the pygmy groups and also the Asian/Indian minorities- most of whom were expelled from countries like Uganda.


I'm not saying there are still problems, but your argument that liberation does'nt actually stop oppression is just rediculous..

You are completely ridiculous in your lack of any historical analysis beyond the level of an average Hollywood "historical" adventure. Most so-called historical wars of national liberation, liberate the bourgeoisie of that nation so that they can usurp the role of the non-indigenous bourgeoisie.


Which is a shitty conclusion, what the proper conclusion should be is that concentrated power cuases oppression. The US created an Empire, but Canada did not ... Why is that? They were both Liberated, well, the US and its corporate elite has a lot of concentrated power, Canada does not.

Since when was Canada "liberated"? The last time I looked the Queen of England was the head-of-state... LOL!!! The US did not create an empire as such more fill the power vacuum left by the crumbling of the British and French empires post-World War Two. Most empires are fundamentally built on trade and could be described as being "merchant" empires as such, otherwise there's no point to all the expenditure is there?

[Bud Struggle]

. The US created an Empire, but Canada did not ... Why is that? They were both Liberated, well, the US and its corporate elite has a lot of concentrated power, Canada does not.

Well not many people live in Canada compared to the US. And Canada was PART of the British empire. Also a good deal of Canadian business was American based.

[ComradeMan]

Well not many people live in Canada compared to the US. And Canada was PART of the British empire. Also a good deal of Canadian business was American based.

Another thing a lot of people forget is that not all American colonists were pro-independence and even after independence the English-Americans maintained their ties with the old country, sending their children for schooling in England etc- trade remained trade and the bourgeoisies looked after their mutual interests on either side of the Atlantic. ;)

[RGacky3]

Well not many people live in Canada compared to the US. And Canada was PART of the British empire. Also a good deal of Canadian business was American based.

Theres a lot of people lots of places, but what the common thread is, throughout all empires, is that there is a huge amount of concentrated power.

[RGacky3]

You are completely ridiculous in your lack of any historical analysis beyond the level of an average Hollywood "historical" adventure. Most so-called historical wars of national liberation, liberate the bourgeoisie of that nation so that they can usurp the role of the non-indigenous bourgeoisie.


Of coarse, but that does not mean that progress does not happen, you don't have one revolution and then no problems, its revolutoins after revolutions that make the world better.


Since when was Canada "liberated"? The last time I looked the Queen of England was the head-of-state... LOL!!! The US did not create an empire as such more fill the power vacuum left by the crumbling of the British and French empires post-World War Two. Most empires are fundamentally built on trade and could be described as being "merchant" empires as such, otherwise there's no point to all the expenditure is there?

Canada was given independance after a struggle.

The US DID create an empire, the hedgemony the US had over latin America post WW2 had nothing to do with the british Empire.

Saying its built on "trade" is missleading, its more build on exploitation and the taking of resources labeled as trade. Its as much trade as the Mafia collecting "protection" money is trade.

[ComradeMan]

Of coarse, but that does not mean that progress does not happen, you don't have one revolution and then no problems, its revolutoins after revolutions that make the world better..

Is it? Really? Which ones, when and how? Last time I looked most of the world was capitalist with growing discontent. I think Nicholas Popov hit the nail on the head when he talked of bourgeois revolutions and palace coups.


Canada was given independance after a struggle...

Which history book did you get that from? If you are going to make up history there's little point discussing things with you. The Canada Act of 1982 gave Canada legal independence from Britain but the Queen of England remained the head of state. The whole thing was done quite peacefully- no "struggles", no "armed revolutions" and no bloodshed either- political debate and democratic process. Oops....:blushing:



The US DID create an empire, the hedgemony the US had over latin America post WW2 had nothing to do with the british Empire. .

Ooops... I forgot to mention the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Spanish and Portugues empires too.


Saying its built on "trade" is missleading, its more build on exploitation and the taking of resources labeled as trade. Its as much trade as the Mafia collecting "protection" money is trade.

Is it as misleading as saying Canada won independence after a long struggle? Trade, commerce, capitalism- that's what empires are built on and if you don't accept that then there's no way you can fight it either.

[RGacky3]

Is it? Really? Which ones, when and how? Last time I looked most of the world was capitalist with growing discontent. I think Nicholas Popov hit the nail on the head when he talked of bourgeois revolutions and palace coups.


You want a list? Do you know any of the labor history? Do you also know how colonization ended? Now things are not great now in the third world but do you think those countries would RATHER be colonies? Why do you not live under a king right now?


The Canada Act of 1982 gave Canada legal independence from Britain but the Queen of England remained the head of state. The whole thing was done quite peacefully- no "struggles", no "armed revolutions" and no bloodshed either- political debate and democratic process. Oops....:blushing:


:rolleyes:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837


Ooops... I forgot to mention the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Spanish and Portugues empires too.


Which ended (in most of America) well over a century before the United States Empire started.


Trade, commerce, capitalism- that's what empires are built on and if you don't accept that then there's no way you can fight it either.

Thats not a responce to what I said. Its not trade, is in free trade on equal terms, or juts general commerce, its threats, extortion, economic imposition, exploitation and so on.

[Viet Minh]

The British had imposed limits to the border, they even actively prevented colonials from traveling further west, after the Revolution the expansion really began. Also slavery continued in America right up to the civil war. A lot of African Americans fought for the British as they had been promised freedom.
Contemporary historians painted the American Revolution as a struggle for freedom by an oppressed people, but in reality the rebels had much to gain in terms of financial wealth and freedom to rule as they saw fit. One of my favourite Hollywood revisionisms is the film 'the patriot' with voice of the christians mel gibson, for its unashamed 'artistic license' turning a racist rapist into a hero of the people. :D

[Omsk]

Hollywood is an propaganda factory,probably better than the one of Goebbels.
I still remeber the 'Enemy at the gates'
But i am used to it,the winner writes the history,and in this case,the winner direct's the movie.It was always like that and i am positive that it will stay like that.

[thriller]

Not revolutionary. However it was a bourgeoisie class fighting a more feudal/mercantilist class.

[ComradeMan]

@Gack: more nonsense about Canada I see. Quoting the rebellions of 1837 is entirely irrelevant to the fact that Canada's full independence, albeit still a constitutional monarchy under the Queen of Canada who happens to be the Queen fo England, came about in 1982! There were no serious wars of independence between Canada and the UK. As for the 1837 rebellions, well- they failed in the end and the aftermath of which was increasing assimilation of Quebec French Canadians.
:rolleyes:
Well done!

[RGacky3]

Quoting the rebellions of 1837 is entirely irrelevant to the fact that Canada's full independence albeit still a constitutional monarchy under the Queen of Canada, who happens to be the Queen fo England, came about in 1982!

Are you saying that until 1982 Canada did not have basicly political autonomy??? Is that what you are trying to claim?

[ComradeMan]

Are you saying that until 1982 Canada did not have basicly political autonomy??? Is that what you are trying to claim?

Through section 2 of the Canada Act 1982, the United Kingdom ended its involvement with further amendments to the Canadian constitution.

Dans la section 2 de la Loi de 1982 sur le Canada, le Royaume-Uni mit fin à sa participation dans de futures modifications de la constitution canadienne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Act_1982

;)

I see you have sneaked the word "autonomy" into this. When another nation can interfere with the constitutional amendments (legally) of yet another nation then there is no full independence; as was the case with Canada until 1982.

As far as I can see the overall relationship between Canada and the UK has been mostly amicable, certainly within living memory. No long struggle and no bitter wars- as you asserted.

[RGacky3]

Comrademan, before 1982 Canada basically had self rule due to the demands for a "responsible government" which resulted in the revolt 1837, which ended up shortly after leading toward a responsible government, meaning an independant government in Canada, the Act of union was in 1840 and throughout the 1840s Canada got essencially self rule, in 1862 that was made official though the Constitution act.

All of this happened because the UK was afraid of a revolt and had pressure from the Canadians.

What happened in 1982 was mostly formalities, as by then Canada already had pretty much full political independance.

[ComradeMan]

....Canada already had pretty much full political independance....

had pretty much- 99% yes is 100% no. LOL!!!

Your comparison of the legal and political relationship of (the)Canada(s) to the United Kingdom and the American War of Independence is absurd.

The fact of the matter is that whereas the United States on formalisation of independence severed all legal and constitutional ties with the United Kingdom as a federal and constitutional republic formally recognised in 1783 the current constitution of which dates from 1788, Canada still a constitutional monarchy under the British crown, severed all such legal and constitutional ties in 1982. Whereas the United States achieved this after a rebellion and subsequent war, Canada achieved this through political negotiation, debate and the democratic process.

Talk about false equivalencies....

[RGacky3]

Ok, but my argument was absolutely valid, both got their independance (mostly) with struggle, some of which was violent, one made an empire, one did not.

Your argument of Libaration=Tyranny is still invalid.

[ComradeMan]

Ok, but my argument was absolutely valid, both got their independance (mostly) with struggle, some of which was violent, one made an empire, one did not.

Your argument of Libaration=Tyranny is still invalid.

A) You keep having to insert extra words and/or delete and/or change terms in order to save your argument. The differences are enormous and outweigh any similarities.

B) I did not say Libaration (sic) = Tyranny. So well done for the strawman. I said the oppressed often become oppressors once "liberated" within which has been the case throughout history. Of course you could argue that through the application of a class analysis the oppressed have never actually been liberated at all and all talk of national liberation fundamentally boils down to one national bourgeoisie fighting another one for "liberation".

[RGacky3]

A) You keep having to insert extra words and/or delete and/or change terms in order to save your argument. The differences are enormous and outweigh any similarities.


The similiarity that matters, is that the Canadians struggled for their independance it was'nt given to them out of the goodness of the british peoples hearts, its the same argument.


B) I did not say Libaration (sic) = Tyranny. So well done for the strawman. I said the oppressed often become oppressors once "liberated" within which has been the case throughout history. Of course you could argue that through the application of a class analysis the oppressed have never actually been liberated at all and all talk of national liberation fundamentally boils down to one national bourgeoisie fighting another one for "liberation".

And my argument is that your ful of it, and that is NOT the case, the corrolation between oppressed people's being liberated and becoming oppressors is not there. The corrolation, both logical and historical, is a large amount of concentrated power.

[Red Bayonet]

US Imperialism did not exist in 1776. That comes later. Also keep in mind that the US was the first country founded on the right of revolution(see the Declaration of Independence).Though an essentially bourgeois revolution, it was a progressive first step in its time. Also keep in mind that the American Revolution never really ended. It continues to this day, wherever American workers are fighting for their rights.Lets keep our historical facts straight (unless one WANTS to sound like an illiterate imbecile).

[ComradeMan]

The similiarity that matters, is that the Canadians struggled for their independance it was'nt given to them out of the goodness of the british peoples hearts, its the same argument..

Nonsense, the similarity is incidental and minimal. You haven't got a leg to stand on unless you are going to try and redefine your terms all over the place. There was no war of independence between the UK and Canada.


And my argument is that your ful of it, and that is NOT the case, the corrolation between oppressed people's being liberated and becoming oppressors is not there. The corrolation, both logical and historical, is a large amount of concentrated power.

Err... you haven't got an argument.

The trouble is, and you fail to see this, when do these wars of liberation actually liberate the oppressed and not the national bourgeoisie who in turn become oppressors or simply continue the old forms of oppression on a local basis? Old wine in new bottles...


US Imperialism did not exist in 1776. That comes later. Also keep in mind that the US was the first country founded on the right of revolution(see the Declaration of Independence).Though an essentially bourgeois revolution, it was a progressive first step in its time. Also keep in mind that the American Revolution never really ended. It continues to this day, wherever American workers are fighting for their rights.Lets keep our historical facts straight (unless one WANTS to sound like an illiterate imbecile).

US Imperialism began in 1776 when it took over from British imperialism.

By the way, you should keep in mind that the right of revolution began in ancient China and was first mentioned in political terms during the Zhou dynasty in order to defend the revolution against the Shang dynasty- the "Mandate from Heaven"- so you're a couple of millennia out on that one. In European terms it could be said to begin with the English Magna Carta- I aslo refer you to Thomas Aquinas. This same right of revolution formed the basis of the Glorious Revolution in England that overthrew James II in 1688.

Lets keep our historical facts straight (unless one WANTS to sound like an illiterate imbecile)

[Revolution starts with U]

America became imperialistic immediately after the revolution, even during it tyring to invade Canada. So... no.

But Comrademan, not that I disagree with your stance (I sort of straddle the line between you and Gack) but I would like to interject the difference between De Facto political rule, and De Jure political rule. It seems Gack is asserting that after 82 (ior whenever) British rule of Canada became purely De Jure.

[RGacky3]

Nonsense, the similarity is incidental and minimal. You haven't got a leg to stand on unless you are going to try and redefine your terms all over the place. There was no war of independence between the UK and Canada.


Never said there was, your missing my point. Independance in Canada WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE CANADIANS OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THE BRITISH STATES HEART, the canadians struggled for it, in the 1830s an 1840s they struggled for self rule, after they got that, over time, they got more and more independance, but it started with struggle.

Thats the similarity that matters in the context of your assertion (which was that there is a corrolation between becoming liberated and becoming imperialistic, which is stupid).


The trouble is, and you fail to see this, when do these wars of liberation actually liberate the oppressed and not the national bourgeoisie who in turn become oppressors or simply continue the old forms of oppression on a local basis? Old wine in new bottles...


Cuba for example, Venezuela is another example.

Look if your looking for a national revolution in which afterwords no form of oppression happens, that rarely happens, most of those revolutions are local, and not national (zapatistas, CNT, worker takeovers) and so on.

However, national bourgeoisie oppression exists in imperialism as well, the imperialism aspect, when taken away, IS ACTUALLY TAKEN AWAY, then sure you still have Capitalism there, but that does not negate the fact that you just got rid of a major labor of oppression.


US Imperialism began in 1776 when it took over from British imperialism.


I'd agree with you in the sense that it took lands from the Indians, but British imperialim was strong and propsering all through and until WW2. American imperialism was tiny in scale until after WW2, just history comrademan.


Lets keep our historical facts straight (unless one WANTS to sound like an illiterate imbecile)

:D

[Red Bayonet]

It would be interesting to hear your opinions on the French Revolution, and the Revolutions of 1848.Would you consider them progressive for their time? Or would you consider them utterly reactionary, because they did not result in the creation of a futuristic communist society?

[ComradeMan]

It would be interesting to hear your opinions on the French Revolution, and the Revolutions of 1848.Would you consider them progressive for their time? Or would you consider them utterly reactionary, because they did not result in the creation of a futuristic communist society?

Well did they abolish property rights? No they entrenched property rights. Did they pass the means of production into the hands of the workers? No they didn't? They could be seen as the death throws of the old regime in a sense.

Gacky, the Cuban revolution- although it replaced a worse regime did not exactly liberate the Cuban people that much, did it? As for Venezuela- well, it's far too early to comment.

[RGacky3]

Well so why bother then.

If people listened to you we'd still have slavery and 1/4th of the world would be under britain, and we'd have no democratic countries, workers would have no rights and Latin America would still be Spanish slave camps.

Cuba is better now than it was under batista, much better, As for Venezuela? We'll its almsot 10 years now.

[ComradeMan]

Well so why bother then.

If people listened to you we'd still have slavery and 1/4th of the world would be under britain, and we'd have no democratic countries, workers would have no rights and Latin America would still be Spanish slave camps.

Cuba is better now than it was under batista, much better, As for Venezuela? We'll its almsot 10 years now.

If people listenened to me those things would not have come about in the first place.

It's tough taking a leftist stance on things but until you abolish property rights and place the means of production in the hands of the workers, as Popov says, all you will have is palace coups and bourgeois revolutions that have the nerve to pose as "liberation". Why would we have slavery by the way? The emancipation of slavery had probably more to do with the industrial revolution and the creation of industrial wage slavery than it had to do with humanitarianism.

[RGacky3]

Why would we have slavery by the way? The emancipation of slavery had probably more to do with the industrial revolution and the creation of industrial wage slavery than it had to do with humanitarianism.

Slavery was done away with due to violent struggles in the united states, and other places.

Heres the point, I support things that make peoples lives better, and that is not always gonna be total abolishion of property rights and a turning over of hte means of production to the hands of the workers, but if your waiting for the PERFECT revolution to get off your ass and make a difference, you might as well just quit.

Getting rid of a layer of exploitation, is better than just waiting to get rid of it all.

[ComradeMan]

Slavery was done away with due to violent struggles in the united states, and other places..

Oh please, how naive can you get?

Slavery and serfdom were largely abolished along with the onset of the industrial age as the machines replaced the manual labour. In fact, there is a whole perspective on the American Civil War that saw it, albeit cynically, as nothing more than the attempt to smash the South economically and provide cheap labour for the factories of the North- the rest was just lip service.

[Revolution starts with U]

Tho there is truth in that Comrademan... Im surprised you've fallen for that right wing rhetoric. That definition is to act as if there was no struggle involved at all.

Ok... what machines "replaced" manual labor? The technology of the industrial revolution facilitated the productiveness of manual labor, but it did not eliminate it (iow, replace). This DID NOT make slavery less economically efficient. What it did was make having large holdings of slaves less economically efficient. Think the cotton gin, why would you need 30 slaves any more when the work can be done with 10? But there is no causal way you can say that would eliminate slavery completely, only reduce it. There is still land that needs farmed. (And slavery is an agricultural based phenomenon. If a factory owner uses slaves he has to house them, which means he needs to buy more land which will make no money for him)
What this increase in "free-men" did do was allow a culture of abolitionism to develop. People with everything to lose (the enslaved) don't often want to shake up the system. But people with nothing to lose (the now free), hey, no problem.

[Red Future]

"has been portrayed as a handful of farmers slaughtering 5,000,000 Redcoats then instantly winning freedom".

About the size of the whole UK population in the North at the time :laugh:

[William Howe]

"has been portrayed as a handful of farmers slaughtering 5,000,000 Redcoats then instantly winning freedom".

About the size of the whole UK population in the North at the time :laugh:

Yet The Patriot makes it look that way, doesn't it? :p

[RGacky3]

Slavery and serfdom were largely abolished along with the onset of the industrial age as the machines replaced the manual labour. In fact, there is a whole perspective on the American Civil War that saw it, albeit cynically, as nothing more than the attempt to smash the South economically and provide cheap labour for the factories of the North- the rest was just lip service.

Nope farms in the south were still worked by hand. Abolishionis was a huge part of it.

But I'm missing your point, what is it, should we just all give up because its pointless?

[ComradeMan]

Nope farms in the south were still worked by hand. Abolishionis was a huge part of it.

But I'm missing your point, what is it, should we just all give up because its pointless?

So you deny there was not a massive influx of black labour, former slaves, to the northern industrial areas such as Detroit?

Gacky, you can't just ignore historical events at whim.

[RGacky3]

So you deny there was not a massive influx of black labour, former slaves, to the northern industrial areas such as Detroit?


Where did I ever deny that?

But again ... Whats your point, whats the point your trying to make?

[Red Bayonet]

Well did they abolish property rights? No they entrenched property rights. Did they pass the means of production into the hands of the workers? No they didn't? They could be seen as the death throws of the old regime in a sense.

Gacky, the Cuban revolution- although it replaced a worse regime did not exactly liberate the Cuban people that much, did it? As for Venezuela- well, it's far too early to comment.

Of course not. It was a bourgeois revolution. And a 'proletariat' as such did not exist at the time.(The Industrial Revolution was rather late in reaching American shores).

[ComradeMan]

Where did I ever deny that?

But again ... Whats your point, whats the point your trying to make?

Your previous comment on the abolition of slavery due to violent struggle completed ignored the material and economic reasons for it.

[RGacky3]

I said that struggle was a huge part of it.

BUT AGAIN .... WHATS YOUR POINT???

[the last donut of the night]

the civil war was much more progressive than the war for independence

[danyboy27]

It was essentially something the american upper class crafted when they understood that they could have their cake and eat it too
.
After a the war against france, the rich colonists realised that they really didnt need the brittish, and could rule over america, and get richer once it would be all over.

No more taxes to control their exportation now, they could do whatever they wanted.

the america ''popular'' uprising attracted only 30% of the population, the rest where against the war or neutral toward it.

[L.A.P.]

Yet The Patriot makes it look that way, doesn't it? :p

I watched the "Patriot" in world history honors class (before you start assuming, the whole point was to point out the historical inaccuracies). I said to my teacher that the movie seems like that had it been released a couple years earlier, those British would have been Russian.

[Agent Ducky]

Oppression is replaced with more oppression. It's kind of depressing. Quoting :che: "Cruel leaders are replaced only to have new leaders turn cruel." I think that's applicable to what happened here. "Let's escape British oppression so we can go own the Natives! Yeah!"