FAO OI'ers - Capitalist personality figures?

[Dr Mindbender]

For the attention of our resident cappies, what figures throughout history or the public domain infuse you with inspiration when it comes to your political beliefs? It's struck me that it's most ardent defenders are, aside from the detached and irrelevant rambling of mainstream politicians generally among random selectee CEO's of various companies giving half hearted soundbites on why they've made a particular decision (usually to the detriment rest of us).

One thing us commies are reproached for is our ideologies contempt for traditional theology; that it is a godless hellward belief system. Although in practice the political opinion of our attackers appears at face value a sterile, mechanical crome monolith (with robo coppers protecting the lobby entrance). Compare that to popular romaticist imagery of communism, revolutionary leftism conjures up images of heroic leftist rebels fighting for noble causes ala guevara or bobby sands. Or put another way, prolific figures have given their lives for communism, but to my knowledge (although i'm willing to be eduated to the contrary) nobody has ever wanted to die specifically for capitalism as an idea. Who is capitalism's equivalent figures? Or do you concede that it is indeed a souless beast?

Furthermore would you concede that the victims of stalinism in other countries who have till now been denied the 'benefits' (please note my parenthesis) of the free market have a rather misconstrued idea of capitalism based upon ignorance of its effects on ordinary people where it has been allowed to run rampant?

Sorry if this has been a bit of a rant, but the thought came to me during a 'moment of clarity'. I look forward to your replies.

[pusher robot]

For the attention of our resident cappies, what figures throughout history or the public domain infuse you with inspiration when it comes to your political beliefs? It's struck me that it's most ardent defenders are, aside from the detached and irrelevant rambling of mainstream politicians generally among random selectee CEO's of various companies giving half hearted soundbites on why they've made a particular decision (usually to the detriment rest of us).

Hmmm. In not particular order, I'd say for myself:
- Aristotle, for his invention of formal logic and coherent metaphysics.
- St. Thomas Aquinas, for his dedication to rationality combined with ethics.
- Kepler, for his dedication to intellectual honesty.
- John Locke, for virtually inventing a political theory of individualism.
- William Blackstone, for his work on synthesizing common law and particularly his recognition of the importance of property law.
- The U.S. "founding fathers," who had the courage to attempt a liberal society and the wisdom to codify its principles.
- Lincoln, for his commitment to the universal application of those principles.
- Max Weber, for his work on the origins of capitalist philosophy.

Basically all of the heavy hitters of liberalism are to varying degrees inspirational.


but to my knowledge (although i'm willing to be eduated to the contrary) nobody has ever wanted to die specifically for capitalism as an idea. Who is capitalism's equivalent figures? Or do you concede that it is indeed a souless beast?You can only reach that conclusion by taking an unreasonably narrow view of what constitutes "capitalism." I consider all of the fight for liberal values to be part of the fight for what you would call "capitalism," for capitalism is nothing more than liberal principles in action.


Furthermore would you concede that the victims of stalinism in other countries who have till now been denied the 'benefits' (please note my parenthesis) of the free market have a rather misconstrued idea of capitalism based upon ignorance of its effects on ordinary people where it has been allowed to run rampant?I'm not sure what you are asking here. Would I concede that victims of Stalinism may have an inaccurate idea of what "capitalism" is? Of course they would, they were exposed to years of lying propaganda about it.

EDIT: Oh my, I just realized I forgot Adam Smith of all people! He practically invented economics!

[Bud Struggle]

Hmmm. In not particular order, I'd say for myself:
- Aristotle, for his invention of formal logic and coherent metaphysics.
- St. Thomas Aquinas, for his dedication to rationality combined with ethics.
- Kepler, for his dedication to intellectual honesty.
- John Locke, for virtually inventing a political theory of individualism.
- William Blackstone, for his work on synthesizing common law and particularly his recognition of the importance of property law.
- The U.S. "founding fathers," who had the courage to attempt a liberal society and the wisdom to codify its principles.
- Lincoln, for his commitment to the universal application of those principles.
- Max Weber, for his work on the origins of capitalist philosophy.

Basically all of the heavy hitters of liberalism are to varying degrees inspirational.

You can only reach that conclusion by taking an unreasonably narrow view of what constitutes "capitalism." I consider all of the fight for liberal values to be part of the fight for what you would call "capitalism," for capitalism is nothing more than liberal principles in action.

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Would I concede that victims of Stalinism may have an inaccurate idea of what "capitalism" is? Of course they would, they were exposed to years of lying propaganda about it.

EDIT: Oh my, I just realized I forgot Adam Smith of all people! He practically invented economics!

Now THAT was a good post. And people wonder why I come here--it's to read stuff like that.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes, this should be interesting. TomK did answer a post like this once, and it was similar to pusher_robot's: a lot of philosopher's mentioned, including Aquinas I think.

We should have one of these for leftists here, too, just so capitalists know not all of us are simply followers of "Marx."

[IcarusAngel]

Since I'm TomK's "official biographer" here is his list:


On the other hand, my philosophic influences have been many: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas (especially), Pascal, Descartes, Kierkegaard, Gilson, Brownson, Lonergan, Edith Stein, John Courtney Murry, Adler and Weigel. And more if you want...it's just that most of these guys don't come into discussion in a Communist forum.

:laugh:

(See, I was right about Aquinas.)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/protest-warrior-cant-t79489/index.html?t=79489

[Demogorgon]

- The U.S. "founding fathers," who had the courage to attempt a liberal society and the wisdom to codify its principles.

Hang on, what was particularly courageous about attempting a liberal society when America already was such before the Revolution?

[danyboy27]

-Sun tzu, military strategist, his book is my bible, i read it every time.
a lot of his principles are applied today in the field of finance and market.

-hassan al turabi, sudanese political man, preaching a moderated islam that embrace democracy and progressives values.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

He practically invented economics!

Herr, hum. That's not technically correct. What Smith articulated in the Wealth of Nations was already being debated.

[Bud Struggle]

Hang on, what was particularly courageous about attempting a liberal society when America already was such before the Revolution?

The founding "OI Brothers" spelled it out.

[Plagueround]

- The U.S. "founding fathers," who had the courage to attempt a liberal society and the wisdom to codify its principles.


I have to ask you on this one...do you feel the various atrocities committed and/or advocated by our "founding fathers" can be justified by what you feel was a positive accomplishment, or do you simply agree with the philosophy they promoted and not what actually resulted?

[COVARE]

capitalism is an economic system. it shouldn't be made in something it isn't. capitalism isamoral thus. it's alternative, however, in addition to the aforementioned and a political system.

[Zurdito]

- The U.S. "founding fathers," who had the courage to attempt a liberal society and the wisdom to codify its principles.

If they had been serious about attempting a liberal society wouldn´t they have liberated their slaves first?:confused:

[pusher robot]

I have to ask you on this one...do you feel the various atrocities committed and/or advocated by our "founding fathers" can be justified by what you feel was a positive accomplishment, or do you simply agree with the philosophy they promoted and not what actually resulted?

Neither, really. My view is that while they were right about many things, they were - like everybody - wrong about some things as well. However, my negative judgment is tempered by placing them in the context in which they existed. That is to say, while they were no more wrong about the things they were wrong about than the rest of humanity, they were more right about the things they were right about. Put another way, at their worst they were no worse than their historical contemporaries, but at their best they were much better. I don't see any contradiction between admiring them for what they got right while conceding that they were wrong about some things.



If they had been serious about attempting a liberal society wouldn´t they have liberated their slaves first?

Material conditions, as they say, were not ripe for that step. Ultimately, it proved a costly concession and the price in blood and treasure some eight decades later was obscene.



Hang on, what was particularly courageous about attempting a liberal society when America already was such before the Revolution?

Not just a liberal society, but a liberal government. It was courageous in that it trusted the ultimate fate of the government to the citizens it governed. In 1787, following the conclusion of the constitutional convention, a lady asked Dr. Benjamin Franklin as he left Indpendence Hall, "Well Doctor, what have we got - a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."

[Zurdito]

Material conditions, as they say, were not ripe for that step. Ultimately, it proved a costly concession and the price in blood and treasure some eight decades later was obscene.


I specifically said their slaves. As in the ones they personally owned.

[pusher robot]

I specifically said their slaves. As in the ones they personally owned.

Some, like Benjamin Franklin, did do that. The rest probably held erroneous but socially pervasive beliefs about the superiority of the white race or judged that it would be otherwise imprudent to do so.

[Decolonize The Left]

Not just a liberal society, but a liberal government. It was courageous in that it trusted the ultimate fate of the government to the citizens it governed. In 1787, following the conclusion of the constitutional convention, a lady asked Dr. Benjamin Franklin as he left Indpendence Hall, "Well Doctor, what have we got - a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."

This is quite amusing. Especially given that the 'settlers' fled England due to taxes which they felt were unjustified, and proceeded to establish a government which would promptly tax all citizens.

In other words:
"Taxes suck! We're leaving to start our own society!"
"What kind of society?"
"One which taxes its citizens!"

- August

[pusher robot]

This is quite amusing. Especially given that the 'settlers' fled England due to taxes which they felt were unjustified, and proceeded to establish a government which would promptly tax all citizens.

In other words:
"Taxes suck! We're leaving to start our own society!"
"What kind of society?"
"One which taxes its citizens!"

- August

This is simply ahistorical. The old revolutionary rallying cry wasn't "No taxation!" It was "No taxation without representation!"

EDIT: Not to mention that 1787 is more than a century after the region was settled by English (among other) refugees.

[Zurdito]

Some, like Benjamin Franklin, did do that. The rest probably held erroneous but socially pervasive beliefs about the superiority of the white race or judged that it would be otherwise imprudent to do so.

well that´s not really an answer is it? I am not asking for a moral assessment of the Founding Fathers, I am talking baout their ideological commitment to liberalism.

do you think that a liberal society can be created by people who consider non-whites to be fit only for slavery?

I don´t have a problem with you listing the Founding Fathers as your heros, but your historical revisionism should be pointed out. it seems to me that you are repainting th leaders of US independence in the terms of the current necessities of your ideology. A myth.

Doesn´t the very fact that they were prepared to own slaves whilst at the same time preaching individual liberty and responsibility and free compeitition as the ideological justifications for private property, suggest that they had no real commitment to these liberal ideals and in fact were just opportunisitically pushing their own interests, i.e. that of a subordinate colonial elite oppressed by a monarchy which was taxing them to fund itself and crippling hteir development?

I personally think that US independence was a progressive move but it´s quite far fetched to argue that this was motivated by a national project to create a liberal society. More believable is that due to the enormous economic potential of the US and free land, they were able to gain vital support for their self-interested project and legitimacy for their own stae, by striking a social pact with certain white settler populations granting them property and low taxes...and benefit from slave labour.

[pusher robot]

well that´s not really an answer is it? I am not asking for a moral assessment of the Founding Fathers, I am talking baout their ideological commitment to liberalism.

do you think that a liberal society can be created by people who consider non-whites to be fit only for slavery?

Yes. Obviously they were somewhat limited as to how radically liberal it could be by material conditions at the time, but the fact that it started comparatively very liberal and became increasingly more liberal over time demonstrates sufficiently to my mind that they were able to do this.



I don´t have a problem with you listing the Founding Fathers as your heros, but your historical revisionism should be pointed out. it seems to me that you are repainting th leaders of US independence in the terms of the current necessities of your ideology. A myth.If there are any facts you feel I have misrepresented, by all means point them out. It's not historical revisionism to have differing opinions as to the meaning and significance of those facts.

EDIT: It also helps to be clear about what event you are specifically talking about: the revolution itself or the formation of the new government.


Doesn´t the very fact that they were prepared to own slaves whilst at the same time preaching individual liberty and responsibility and free compeitition as the ideological justifications for private property, suggest that they had no real commitment to these liberal ideals and in fact were just opportunisitically pushing their own interests, i.e. that of a subordinate colonial elite oppressed by a monarchy which was taxing them to fund itself and crippling hteir development?First of all, a good number of founding fathers became committed abolitionists, so your "fact" is not completely true. Second of all, their support for the revolution gravely jeopardized their property and their lives, so it was hardly a very sound investment as you seem to suggest. Thirdly, fighting for one's own interests against an oppressive monarchy taxing one to fund itself and crippling one's development is itself a liberal position! You're basically asking, "doesn't the fact that they weren't fighting for [abstract liberal principles] suggest that they were instead fighting for [specific liberal outcomes]?" Or, perhaps, if you mean something bad by fighting against an oppressive monarchy, "doesn't their lack of perfection suggest evil intention?" No, I don't think that's a fair assessment.


I personally think that US independence was a progressive move but it´s quite far fetched to argue that this was motivated by a national project to create a liberal society. More believable is that due to the enormous economic potential of the US and free land, they were able to gain vital support for their self-interested project and legitimacy for their own stae, by striking a social pact with certain white settler populations granting them property and low taxes...and benefit from slave labour.That's fine, but understand that we have on the one hand all the writings by the founders themselves, the minutes of the conventions, many personal letters and statements, the promulgated documents themselves, and the personal acts of the founders. On the other hand, we have your opinion.

[Demogorgon]

Not just a liberal society, but a liberal government. It was courageous in that it trusted the ultimate fate of the government to the citizens it governed. In 1787, following the conclusion of the constitutional convention, a lady asked Dr. Benjamin Franklin as he left Indpendence Hall, "Well Doctor, what have we got - a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."
Again though, a Liberal Government existed to a large extent before. The colonial Governments tended to be elected and even Britain itself had an elected Government, albeit with only property owners having the vote, bound by a bill of rights. The American revolutionaries were not objecting to the system of British Government but rather to the fact that it was exercising its authority outside the British isles while only allowing those inside Britain to elect it.

I am not saying that the authors of the Constitution were not creating a more liberal system, because it was in most respects (apart from slavery of course, which was already banned in Britain itself and was shortly to be banned in the colonies as well, my inner cynic suggests that that was one of the reasons America was so keen to cut loose) but it was only really continuing allowing the steps already being walked in Britain, not trying anything completely new.

[Zurdito]

[QUOTE]

First of all, a good number of founding fathers became committed abolitionists, so your "fact" is not completely true.


it´s true that many were slave-owners. that was my fact.


Second of all, their support for the revolution gravely jeopardized their property and their lives, so it was hardly a very sound investment as you seem to suggest.

I argue that they fought for the interests of their class. Varios bourgeois revolutioanries did this. Marxism states that ideology has a material basis not that everything can be reduced to mere immediate economciinterest. The founding fathers worldview was shaped byt heir economic position, this doesn´t mean that they were limtied to only htinking of immediate profit. Indeed morality and ideology spring from clashing material interests and people are often prepared to die for these thigs.

Still I don´t see how this proves they were trying to create a liberal society, which was the argument.


Thirdly, fighting for one's own interests against an oppressive monarchy taxing one to fund itself and crippling one's development is itself a liberal position!

Really? Even when you are a slaveholder?



You're basically asking, "doesn't the fact that they weren't fighting for [abstract liberal principles] suggest that they were instead fighting for [specific liberal outcomes]?" Or, perhaps, if you mean something bad by fighting against an oppressive monarchy, "doesn't their lack of perfection suggest evil intention?" No, I don't think that's a fair assessment.


No, my question was doesn´t the fact that they were slave-owners and continued to be sugest that their liberal rhetoric was hypocritical and does not describe the society they were actually trying to create.


That's fine, but understand that we have on the one hand all the writings by the founders themselves, the minutes of the conventions, many personal letters and statements, the promulgated documents themselves, and the personal acts of the founders. On the other hand, we have your opinion

...and that of various historians, and the actions of the founding fathers, etc.:rolleyes:

[Self-Owner]

I argue that they fought for the interests of their class. Varios bourgeois revolutioanries did this. Marxism states that ideology has a material basis not that everything can be reduced to mere immediate economciinterest. The founding fathers worldview was shaped byt heir economic position, this doesn´t mean that they were limtied to only htinking of immediate profit. Indeed morality and ideology spring from clashing material interests and people are often prepared to die for these thigs.

Interesting that you only pick out 'bourgeois' revolutionaries as fighting in the interests of their own class; do you think this didn't apply to Marxist revolutionaries? And if so, what conclusions can you draw from the fact that the upper echelons of Marxist revolutionary organizations tended to be made up of middle/upper class people?

[pusher robot]

Still I don´t see how this proves they were trying to create a liberal society, which was the argument.

You seem to be assuming a false dichotomy, wherein they must have been either fighting in their perceived class interest or for a liberal society. I don't see any reason why one can't reasonably conclude that they perceived a liberal society to be in their class interests.


Really? Even when you are a slaveholder?

Yes. After all, one cannot work to abolish slavery when one has no control over one's laws.


No, my question was doesn´t the fact that they were slave-owners and continued to be sugest that their liberal rhetoric was hypocritical and does not describe the society they were actually trying to create.

Not really. It's just as plausible, and more historically supportable, to argue that their slave ownership was hypocritical and did not represent the society they were actually trying to create.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Basically all of the heavy hitters of liberalism are to varying degrees inspirational.
You must have an exceptionally broad definition of "liberalism" if it includes people like Kepler, Aquinas or Aristotle (and for that matter - you do know what kind of government Aristotle advocated, right?).


You can only reach that conclusion by taking an unreasonably narrow view of what constitutes "capitalism." I consider all of the fight for liberal values to be part of the fight for what you would call "capitalism," for capitalism is nothing more than liberal principles in action.
"Fight?" None of the people you mentioned ever did any actual, you know, fighting. Except perhaps some of the U.S. "founding fathers," depending on how exactly you wish to define that vague term.

The number of people who died for socialist ideals - or for "king and country" for that matter - is several orders of magnitude higher than the number of people who ever died for liberal ideals. All the great armed ideological struggles of the 20th century were between socialists and reactionary nationalists, with liberals hardly visible. The Russian Revolution and Civil War, the Civil War in Spain, the struggles of the 1920s and 30s in Europe, the Chinese Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, the struggles in Latin America... every time liberalism survived, it did so only by hiding behind a great nationalist shield. If you didn't have the shield of nationalism to cower behind, your liberal ideology would be as extinct as the dinosaurs.

And that's why I'm very glad to see liberals hard at work destroying their own defenses by promoting global trade, economic integration, tolerance for diverse cultures and ever-closer international ties. In your utopian triumphalism, you do not understand that hatred, bigotry and ignorance are the pillars on which your entire capitalist system rests. In another hundred years, if present trends continue, your shield of nationalism will be gone. And then you will have nothing to protect you. Liberalism is an ideology of cowards.

[Bud Struggle]

Liberalism is an ideology of cowards.

After of a century of the forces of Progressive Socialism fighting the forces of Reactionary Fascism--all played out on the grand scale with millions dead on either side for their cause--they are all gone. All the fascists are gone (almost all) and all the Communists are gone (bsides for revleft).

All dead or corrupted--and the winner is----liberal Capitalism. After all that.

[Plagueround]

After of a century of the forces of Progressive Socialism fighting the forces of Reactionary Fascism--all played out on the grand scale with millions dead on either side for their cause--they are all gone. All the fascists are gone (almost all) and all the Communists are gone (bsides for revleft).


I'm not sure about the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet revleft isn't even 1% of the communists in the world. It's not like this website is the sole bastion for communism.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm not sure about the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet revleft isn't even 1% of the communists in the world. It's not like this website is the sole bastion for communism.


I don't doubt it--but I think it is a major bastion of Orthodox Communism. I think there are "Communist" all over the place--but not many that would pass muster as true "Revolutionaries." I know from the stuff I see from the CPUSA (haven't been to a meeting, yet) it's really NOTHING like the things you do and say here on RevLeft (not making a good or bad judgment--just stating what I see.)

Most "Communists" are Socialist that seem to get along as political parties in various parts of the world.

I can say this pretty surely, if any of you guys went to Cuba and start talking this Anarchism, Leninism, Stalinism out loud, you'd be in wisked out of public sight in a heartbeat.

[Demogorgon]

I don't doubt it--but I think it is a major bastion of Orthodox Communism. I think there are "Communist" all over the place--but not many that would pass muster as true "Revolutionaries." I know from the stuff I see from the CPUSA (haven't been to a meeting, yet) it's really NOTHING like the things you do and say here on RevLeft (not making a good or bad judgment--just stating what I see.)

Most "Communists" are Socialist that seem to get along as political parties in various parts of the world.

I can say this pretty surely, if any of you guys went to Cuba and start talking this Anarchism, Leninism, Stalinism out loud, you'd be in wisked out of public sight in a heartbeat.Well it is true to say that if you narrow Communism down to what is acceptable on RevLeft, it might be quite limited, but I wonder if Communism as defined here was ever exactly widespread.

If you define Communism that bit more broadly, it is certainly alive and well.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

After of a century of the forces of Progressive Socialism fighting the forces of Reactionary Fascism--all played out on the grand scale with millions dead on either side for their cause--they are all gone. All the fascists are gone (almost all) and all the Communists are gone (bsides for revleft).

All dead or corrupted--and the winner is----liberal Capitalism. After all that.
For now. But the war isn't over yet. Liberal capitalism seemed even more secure and triumphant in 1908 than it does in 2008. And look what happened soon thereafter.

[Zurdito]

Interesting that you only pick out 'bourgeois' revolutionaries as fighting in the interests of their own class; do you think this didn't apply to Marxist revolutionaries? And if so, what conclusions can you draw from the fact that the upper echelons of Marxist revolutionary organizations tended to be made up of middle/upper class people?

I didn´t say that. I said ideology arises from clashing class interests, not that everyone who suscribes to an ideology of a certain class necessarilly belongs to that class. For example most workers believe in bourgeois ideology, and mny die for various bourgeois ideologies. Likewise, outside of times of mass struggle the mass of the working class will not be marxist, and those who are will be so because of a combination between their own experiences and ideas propogated by a small number of middle class intelelctuals who have the time to study marxist theory.

my point though is that marxist theory was borne out of the study of class struggle, and that Marx based his theory on the demands expressed by the unpropertied classes throughout history, and on their economic and political struggles at the time he lived. i.e., it was borne through the clash of interests between different classes.

[Zurdito]

You seem to be assuming a false dichotomy, wherein they must have been either fighting in their perceived class interest or for a liberal society. I don't see any reason why one can't reasonably conclude that they perceived a liberal society to be in their class interests.


I´m not asusming that dichotomy, these are two different arguments. you stated that they risked their lives and property for their beliefs, so it could not have been mere economic pragtamism. I was agreeing, and and saying why I agreed in marxist terms.

The question remains though whether this ideology was liberalism, or simply the bleief that the US elite had the right to pursue its own interests free of dominance from the British crown.



Yes. After all, one cannot work to abolish slavery when one has no control over one's laws.



I didn´t once mention abolishing lsavery, I asked about htem liebrating their own slaves. You talked earlier about the material conditions not being ready to abolish slavery. It seems that neither were the material conditions rerady for the founding fathers themselves to exist withoiut slavery. in which case it seems contardictory to say that the material conditions existed for that same elite, which in pàrt depended on slavery, to be liberal.


Not really. It's just as plausible, and more historically supportable, to argue that their slave ownership was hypocritical and did not represent the society they were actually trying to create

it´s possible to argue that if you ignore the fact that the social system they implemented was not very liberal, yes.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Zurdito;1242156]I didn´t say that. I said ideology arises from clashing class interests, not that everyone who suscribes to an ideology of a certain class necessarilly belongs to that class. For example most workers believe in bourgeois ideology, and mny die for various bourgeois ideologies. Likewise, outside of times of mass struggle the mass of the working class will not be marxist, and those who are will be so because of a combination between their own experiences and ideas propogated by a small number of middle class intelelctuals who have the time to study marxist theory.



So the claim here is that the ideology of the workers is permamently not "bourgeoise," even if the most of the workers most of the time favor "bourgeoise" ideology?

[Green Dragon]

I didn´t once mention abolishing lsavery, I asked about htem liebrating their own slaves. You talked earlier about the material conditions not being ready to abolish slavery. It seems that neither were the material conditions rerady for the founding fathers themselves to exist withoiut slavery. in which case it seems contardictory to say that the material conditions existed for that same elite, which in pàrt depended on slavery, to be liberal.



By the time of the Revolution, slavery was considered an embarrasement. Most slaveholders freed their slaves upon theirs deaths, and it was no more complicated than indicating so in their will. The founding fathers fully expected slavery to die out at some point in the future. As a result of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, states began abolishing slavery left and right (in other words, there was greater progress in abolition as a result of the formation of the USA, than had existed under the British empire).

It was in the years between 1776-1861 did the attitude change amongst the slaveowners. It turned from slavery being an embarrasement, to slavery being a positive good for society.

So while slavery existed

it´s possible to argue that if you ignore the fact that the social system they implemented was not very liberal, yes.[/quote]

[Ken]

I'm not sure about the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet revleft isn't even 1% of the communists in the world. It's not like this website is the sole bastion for communism.

id sure hope not :cool:

[Zurdito]

[quote]


So the claim here is that the ideology of the workers is permamently not "bourgeoise," even if the most of the workers most of the time favor "bourgeoise" ideology?

no.