#StopAngloSaxonGenocide

I don’t think it’s as much about the founding fathers specifically as it is about the enlightenment ideals that America was founded on. However most Americans hold the images of the founding fathers near and dear to themselves, so whichever side is able to more effectively appropriate that image will have an edge. Also it’s not like the founding fathers were like the average conservative describes them either. The religious right unironically claims that they wanted America to be a “Christian nation” when in reality they excplicitly enshrined secular government from the country’s inception. If they can engage in historical revisionism then we can do the same, albeit ours will be less agregious since we will be claiming to be the upholders of the logical conclusion of enlightenment ideals, not that socialism is what the founding fathers wanted.

Hello, Zig Forums

And here's a text Goebbels published in 1942 about the USA and the american people:
research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb5.htm

I wonder how many of this so called american nazis have read it kek

No they weren't.

...

So you're a liar and an idealist.
How about this: instead of upholding slaveowners, let's uphold abolitionists. Shocking concept huh?

Good point, "THE LEFT" must reclaim Reagan, Clinton, Eisenhower, etc. from the right!!!

Attached: Reagen the Communist.jpg (850x400, 80.08K)

kek that's a good one. my favorite quote from him tho it's him at the UN talking about alien invasions

e b i n

Wasn't that Nixon? The "If we were invaded by aliens we'll all unite" quote?

If you don’t see the value in appropriating symbols that millions of Americans already idolize then you are brain dead. Besides, there’s no lying involved, since we aren’t saying the founding fathers were socialists, rather that socialism is the only way to realize the ideals upon which America was supposedly founded. If America’s national mythology can be used to bolster the socialist movement, then there is no reason why it shouldn’t be done. Or you can go around raving about “the United Snakes of AmeriKKKa” and watch almost the entire working class stampede into the arms of the right.

How am I a liar? America was explicitly a political project that aimed at life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness, it simply failed to realize those ideals. It’s not as if this kind of thing is without precedent, both Ho Chi Minh and the Black Panthers often quoted the founding fathers and Declaration of Independence.

t. Uncle Ho

None of those people have even close to the same level as propaganda value as the founding fathers, don’t be an idiot.

shut the fuck up, you are a crypto-fascist.

Yet this message (which you caricature) is already very popular with the most revolutionary segments of the US population. It's our job to further expose the USA's fascist nature by educating people about the USA's support for Al Qaeda, Nazi Germany, modern Nazis in Ukraine and elsewhere, and so on. And of course we must always relate it back to the fascist police and prison guards who kill thousands of proles per year, and who support myriad fascist militant cells, including the Aryan Brotherhood, KKK, etc. If you are against this, YOU ARE A FASCIST.

youtube.com/watch?v=5UUKj-7_9rU
Shut the fuck up fascoid idealist.

Why do you even think American proles are so enamored with "The Founding Fathers?" The overwhelming majority of American proles couldn't give two shits, they slept through those godawful falsified history classes. Unlike your booj ass apparently.

Brainlet detected.

Which is also the most tiny and irrelevant section. You want to pander to edgy college kids and impotent radlibs be my guest, I’ll be out organizing the actual proletariat.

You know that fascism is more that just right wing state violence right? Aryan Brotherhood and KKK are fascists, the US government is not, it’s a bourgeois democracy, distinct from fascism which explicitly rejects bourgeois democracy.

I’m not against it. I’m for using the symbolism and rhetoric of classical liberalism and using it for the purposes of socialism, just like countless socialists worldwide have done before me. Or is Ho Chi Minh a fascist too because he quoted the Declaration of Independence?

I can’t believe you are missing the point this hard. I’m talking about taking the mythology of American history and billing socialism as the only system capable of making the ideals espoused by that mythology a reality, not whitewashing America’s crimes. Case in point, what do you think will mobilize more Americans to resist fascism? Telling them that their grandfathers died on the beaches of Normandy to defeat Nazism, or ranting about how actually America has always been fascist and is irredeemably evil? Have you ever talked to a prole before? Do you think they will listen to you if you tell them that their entire culture and history is evil and should be rejected? The key is to find elements of the American story that are positive from a socialist perspective, and promote them as the ideal that all Americans should strive for in order to reshape America into a society that lives up to its promises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the self evident truth that all people are created equal.

Lmao, confirmed for having never actually talked to a prole.

Attached: 89164549-6220-47E8-8CF5-4F5479EDC26E.jpeg (1133x1200, 253.12K)

Bring in the Roman columns.

How about black Americans, chauvinist?

lmfao

These are two inherently counterposed and irreconcilable lines of propaganda.

Fucking disgusting Yank Str*sserite, a fine example of American anarchism.

Ok.

Attached: 545.JPG (500x506, 69.86K)

Historically, the reactionaries weren't the liberals, even the more right-leaning among them, but the monarchists (in the strict sense, rather than the right-liberals congenial to it). To treat it any other way is simply ahistorical, like the "FASCIST" guy in this thread.

The Jacobins weren't possible without the example of the American Revolution. Sure, the most radical of the supporters of the French Revolution were more radical than those of the American Revolution, but these radicals were all still liberals; it only approached communism in the figure of Babeuf.

read the federalist papers

The key political tenants of the Anti-Anglo movement

The key political tenants of the Anti-Anglo movement

This is why the Pennsylvania Dutch need their own nation

(The Irish are also welcome, the Molly Maguires were hardcore)

Good thread. Somehow.

Brainlet 2 cents:

The American revolution was immensely important in setting off a long chain of revolutions and revolutionary ideology which ran straight to the USSR before its influence was eclipsed. The short of it is you have the American revolution, then the French, and then the Haitian revolution which lent fuel to the abolitionist movement, and then the Civil War, and then following the series came the Russian revolution.

And slavery staying legal to begin with, afaik, was basically pragmatism. Even early on the regions that didn't directly depend on it did not want it - and those guys felt like the south was actively screwing them and getting way too much mileage out of that 'compromise.' To my knowledge, it was always largely contradictory. This is even embodied directly in Jefferson - just how his hypocrisy is evaluated depends on the year, but it remains that he was both a slave owner and a slave banner.

Attached: hitler on america.png (1080x1416, 1.17M)

They're roughly the same in terms of political figures. Hey, Churchill has a pretty good name for himself, having fought off the Nazis and all, maybe the Brits should try to revive Churchill as a socialist figure, hurr.

Except Churchill was reactionary even for his time, the founding fathers weren't. Next you'll be ripping on Engels because he said mean things about gays.

Most of the Founding Fathers weren't "classical liberals" in any meaningful sense, and they fucking hated the ones that were. Thomas Paine died alone and unmorned.

The Founding Fathers were also reactionary even for their time. Sure, maybe not as deep as the French reactionaries, but as former Englishmen they would have leaned hard conservative. The only reason they didn't simply crown a new king is because Paine had sowed the seeds of republicanism too far and wide.

Thomas Paine was a left-winger and not merely a "classical liberal". His later writings not only included discussion of radical abolition but also included perhaps the first proposal of what would come to be known as UBI.

Thom Paine's radicalism had merely gone beyond where the typical bourgeois radical of the time was willing to go.

Not really. They are highly comparable to the bourgeois revolutionaries in Latin America who also favored gradual abolition and were far from being full-throated egalitarians. One thing that the American revolution did that the Latin American revolutions largely did not was they destroyed the East Coast American aristocracy. Unfortunately, a second war was required to end the slave-holding class in the South, but this war also culminated in the greatest expropriation of private property prior to 1917.
marxist.com/class-struggle-and-the-american-revolution.htm

I hope you're not referring to the myth about there being an offer to make Washington king.
msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/gbi/docs/kingmyth.html

If that were true then they wouldn't have been cited as direct inspiration for people like Robespierre and Simon Bolivar. Liberal revolutions around the world took their cues from America, including the French, Haitian and Latin American revolutions, as well as the revolutions of 1848. The American revolution kicked off a period of political unrest and revolutionary change that eventually culminated in the October Revolution. They may not have been as progressive as contemporary or later liberals, but to say that they didn't have a role in inspiring them is untrue.

I think its worth pointing out that a fair chunk of Latin American bourgeois revolutionaries were only abolitionist/anti-racist in theory. As I said before, the abolitionist movement in much of Latin America wasn't unlike what occurred in the North of the US–where gradual abolition was effective because slavery wasn't greatly profitable or sustainable. Ironically enough, Latin revolutions were chic even in the Southern US for this reason.

The anti-colonial and universalist speeches of men like Bolivar are stirring to me but its worth seeing what really happened in an objective context.
1. the reactionary Catholic Church and the aristocrats implanted in Latin society by and large were not uprooted, with negative consequences for historical progress in the Western hemisphere.

2.Black chattel slavery didn't really die out until the 1850s in much of the Latin world, even if it did decline. Some countries like monarchist Brazil actually saw the growth of slavery and its maintenance past the American civil war. Even some nations like Mexico who passed legislation abolishing slavery immediately after indepedence did not effectively dismantle their feudal structures or deal with the problem of Indian slavery. It is estimated there were between 200-500 thousand Indian slaves in the Yucatan in the early 20th century.

3.Indepedence from colonial governments did not necessarily translate to an end of racism, genocide, or colonial conquest. For instance, not long after Argentina declared independence it began a campaign of sustained Indian genocide as bad or worse than what happened in US/Canada. Tens of millions of Europeans flooded into the region in what can be viewed as a second wave of European settler colonialism for countries like Argentina, Brazil, Cuba and Chile. Color-blind ideology around certain racial concepts such as "mestizo" often masked real tensions between descendants of European conquers who usually made up a majority of the population and indigenious/Afro-Latin communities.

All that being said, I support the revolutions that ended colonial rule in the Americas (including the US revolution) even if they were "flawed" from the perspective of someone looking backwards from the 21st century.

Proofs?

IIRC, no one gave a shit about the American Revolution, it was the French Revolution that was a big deal.

And no, I'm talking about the general political atmosphere among the "patriots" before "Common Sense" was published. Common Sense established the idea of the American Revolution as some sort of republican political project rather than a mostly economically driven separatist movement.

Literally just pick up a history book. Not only was the American revolution an inspiration on the French revolutionaries and all the other revolutionaries in the Western hemisphere but most historians agree it contributed to the bankruptcy of the French monarchy which led to the Revolution. The Rights of Man pretty much cribed from the US declaration of independence.
history.com/news/how-did-the-american-revolution-influence-the-french-revolution

Aka before the revolution actually happened. You know that for a long time, many bourgeois in France held out hopes for an English-style constitutional monarchy, right? The French revolution really only gained the upper-hand with the flight of Louis XVI.

*the republican wing of the French revolution

Thomas Jefferson literally helped write the early drafts.

prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2012/07/13/in-their-own-words-thomas-jefferson-and-the-storming-of-the-bastille/

Boomer-tier American internal propaganda network.

Is that all you've got? Go check any reputable history book on the subject and you're going to find that I'm right all the same.

imagine being this retarded

Every history book I've read has called the American Revolution a "conservative revolution", a revolution merely to restore the status quo, not something genuinely revolutionary (like the French Revolution).

And that's not just lefty history works either, this was echoed in my fucking high school history textbooks.

sorry that you're not getting a full socialist revolution in the late 1700s when capitalism hasn't even been properly established yet.

Were many of the founding fathers racist? yes.
Did many of them have backwards ideas on the proletariat and democracy? yes.
this doesn't mean that it was in the end a progressive movement that further weakened the grip of mercantile colonialism, furthering the enlightenment and advancement of history into true prole democracy.

Attached: main-qimg-e44f107be017c00ecdd806d6ede4df05-c.jpg (700x491 44.47 KB, 45.56K)

yeah fuck us, right? typical leftypol.

Listen, I'm an American and, yes, I once idolized the Founding Fathers like many other Americans, but there's really nothing there that's useful to the left. If anything, continuing to suck off the Founders reinforces American nationalism, and you can't out-nationalist the right, it's a fool's errand. If anything, continuing to pump up the Founding Fathers makes turns people into rabid reactionaries who want nothing more than to turn back the clock 200 years. They sit at the center of bullshit like American Exceptionalism and the American Dream, two firmly capitalist and nationalist ideologies. If anything, what we should do is tear down American nationalism and its idols, and build up a new proletarian internationalist identity in its stead.

There was a genuine liberal revolution not but 6 years after the American Revolution. It being a product of its time isn't an excuse.

Also, this is nothing new. The fucking libs have been trying to make a "progressive" case for the Founding Fathers and American nationalism for decades, you can see how well that worked out for them. They strengthen the right by making American nationalist mythology go completely unquestioned, and get bubkes in return. It's been tried, it doesn't work.

Hmmm…yes…wonder why that could be….🤔

Miss me with that weak shit. Every Anglo revolution is portrayed as a conservative revolution, including the British revolution where the King was executed and the monarchy. But that shit doesn't really hold up to sustained critique even 1688 was more revolutionary than it is often portrayed.

The US:
-rebelled against colonial rule
-set up the world's first republic premised on enlightenment values (first secular nation)
-dismantled its aristocratic class
-began the path to abolition (this was largely achieved in the North)
I wouldn't say any of that is exactly conservative in the context of the late 18th century. We only see it as conservative because the French Revolution did indeed go further.

I'm glad you managed to BTFO the founders by appealing to two 20th century concepts.

You're confusing liberal with radical. The French revolution went through a radical phase during the 1790s but otherwise, the French bourgeois was actually more conservative than their American counterparts. Marx even argued that the French revolution started off in a manner that was more conservative than the British revolution!

You also have failed to refute my point regarding the broad similarity of the political trajectory of Latin American revolutions and those of the United States. I would point out that given the fact that the Latin American revolutions happened later than the American one, the blemishes of that revolutionary generation and the regimes that followed are harder to justify…

Good to know that Lenin was a lib:

*first democratic republic

never said it was?
my point was that it WAS a legitimate liberal revolution, not """conservative""" or whatever you're trying to say

also check

I think going from one pole to another is equally stupid. There's room for an assessment of what they were that is historical rather than premised on idealizing the Founding Fathers no matter what they were or resenting them for what they were not and could not be.

Americans fall in love with the ideals of the Founding Fathers which they attempt to find in them as people, almost as a kind of idolatry. One should reject the idolatry, but a recognition of both the strengths of their (unachieved) ideals and their inability to realize them is important for both productive political dialogue and historical truth. Marxists in the past have been able to do this; I'm not sure why some in this thread have an inability to do so, other than from a simpleminded anti-capitalistism.

Forgot about that word filter for anti-A.mericanism, but the word filter reflects the conflation of being against capitalism and against the US entirely on the left. It results in a grotesque miscontrual that reaches back into the past and rejects even the country's progressive role historically, in favor of a sillier narrative that the revolution was in fact regressive.

Wew.

There’s actually a very simple reason to oppose all this bullshit wholesale. The government of the United States is the same government the ‘’Founding’’ Father’s founded. Saying that you want to continue their “great project” by overthrowing their great project is a tough sell to say the least.

Lenin was obviously working with very limited information and, furthermore, he wasn’t trying to use the image of the Founders to spread socialism.

And what I meant was is that the liberals (who have a much stronger claim to the ideological legacy of the Founders) have been trying to rehabilitate their image for progressive liberalism for decades and all it’s done is make the right stronger. I’d be very interested to know exactly how you think “actually, the Founding Fathers would have wanted us to destroy their government and read Marx” would be convincing when libs struggle to convince anyone that the Founders didn’t want the US to be in an eternal 1789 time bubble.

Why do burgers always think they're so special? The American Revolution was just a colonial revolt that actually succeeded. Comparing it to the French Revolution, which was a massive societal upheaval that sent waves through all of Europe and made every monarch shit their pants, is silly.

< Taking a dim view of popular uprisings, Maria Theresa expressed to George III her "hearty desire to see the restoration of obedience and tranquility in every quarter of his dominions," and Joseph told the British ambassador, "The cause in which England is engaged … is the cause of all sovereigns who have a joint interest in the maintenance of due subordination … in all the surrounding monarchies."

Attached: 1511c56595f99b75bed8a74e4f46436d6749add277b6328374adea1a893380c4.png (174x185, 44.11K)

And what did they do after that? Nothing. Meanwhile the French Republic fought a war with all of Europe. It's pretty clear which one was more of a threat. If that isn't enough to satisfy you, try comparing what happened inside those countries: France had years of revolutionary violence as different factions fought to seize control of the state and the lower classes sought to punish the old ruling class - not very different from what would later happen in Russia. What did the US have?

I just don't understand what it is about dialectics that's so hard for people. Why is it so hard to comprehend that what was radical a couple centuries ago maybe centrist or even conservative today? You're post here is a perfect example of this:
This is just on so many levels of false-equivalence and counterfactual speculation that its a little ludicrous. Even if we could revive the Founding Fathers and get their take on politics today it would have almost nothing to do with a proper analysis of the role they played in history.

I won't make any speculation on whether they would be communists if they were alive today but the historical role they played as revolutionaries is important. Even Thomas Jefferson thought America might need multiple revolutions and John Quincy Adams literally welcomed the prospect of a war to end slavery.

Just say that you think he's fucking wrong. Nothing pisses me off more than ridiculous pseudo-historical bullshit like your pushing here. Marx and Engels knew a lot about America and its history and so did Lenin. The European world of that time was full of people knowledgeable about America and there was all types of mediums through which one could gain information: telegraphs, phones, newspapers, books etc.

Quite a few Bolsheviks went to America to work there both before and after the revolution. Lenin admired American socialists like Eugene Debs and De Leon in addition to bourgeois revolutionary figures like the Founders and Lincoln. The Soviet government had spies in the US and contacts with all kinds of Left parties, even in the early 20s.

There wasn't any lack of access to information, you're just unwilling to accept that Lenin did not choose to fall for the historical revisionist/Sakaist interpretation of American history popular at the moment.

Actually, he was, and that's evident in the article when he praises the American revolution as a liberatory war. The most successful left-wing group (CPUSA) also used what was progressive in the legacy to help cultivate revolutionary consciousness in the working class.

By contrast, those following the historical revisionist/sakaist lines on the American revolution have never had a party of note that did anything of value for the American working class.
Was it a "conservative revolution" or a liberal one? Why the backtracking?

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-07-11 at 11.08.14 PM.png (677x878, 276.96K)

Defending the "Founding Fathers" themselves is a lost cause, if you put one cent of prestige by their personalities all you'll find are the slaveowning porkies with contempt for genuine popular government that they were. (Madison's faction were skeptical even of bourgeois republicanism). What I do think is worth at salvaging is what American nationalism actually meant to working class people in the 19th century, before Porky succeeded in warping it to his agenda with decades of red scare propaganda. Living in America early on meant the promise of owning your own land and controlling your own life, and interacting with other citizens as material equals. After the cheap land dried up, and large cattle barons, etc. starting forcing everyone off their lands and into factories, farmers and workers formed tenant and trade unions and consistently cited "the ideals America was founded on" to defend their struggles. I don't have access to my books right now but there are loads of good quotes on American labor nationalism on this.

Which was brought upon them by the liberal Girondist faction looking to salvage a moderate revolutionary path rather than the radical Jacobin faction. Likewise, obviously travelling 3000 miles to put down a rebellion by sea is a lot more difficult than trying to put down a revolution in a country next door by land. The US more or less fought on the side of France in the addendum to the Napoleonic Wars known as the war of 1812.

The US had its own period of terror against the Tories and other aristocratic loyalist. It was by and large decentralized mob terror, which is what Robespierre tried to avoid, but nonetheless it was not at all insignificant factor in the American revolutionary experience.

the american republic, while not as in direct risk of invasion as revolutionary France, suffered a lot from outside monarchical interference in their early years which they had to push back.
see the: Libyan pirates, War of 1812, XYZ affair

to say that they didn't have an enormous impact on the status of monarchies in Europe, because you didn't pay attention in history class to anything other than the revolutionary war, is asinine

also this

Is Croatia defeating Anglo in football a form of anglo genocide?

The figure of the Founding Father’s is tied inexorably to the government they founded. To try to rehabilitate the image of the Founders for socialism is to suggest that they would have wanted their government and their whole political project scrapped. To try to deceitfully claim that there was some good, radical core in the Founders is to claim that there’s something good and inherently progressive about the American state (the thing they created). This is why love for the Founders always necessarily leads to reaction, if their intent was good and what they created a beacon to the rest of the world, it naturally follows that the fact that everything is so bad now because it was somehow “corrupted” and if we want to return to the good ol’ days, we should restore the government back to the Founders’ intent. This is how most American reactionaries think, and it really is the most logical conclusion from upholding the Founders. On the flip side, attacking the Founders, exposing their rotten legacy for what it is necessarily leads to the conclusion that we should undo the government and the system they created, which actually is our goal.

And don’t talk to me about their progressive role in history, if the American Revolution has failed and they had all been hanged, slavery would have ended a century sooner and we’d probably all be living under socialism now with no surviving capitalist power to defend and rehabilitate the old capitalist powers in Europe after they self-destructed in the two world wars (in fact, there might not have even been two world wars, the Great War could have been it for the capitalist powers with no America to intervene.)

Attached: 74331d7081cfdd411fa3da0693efb91f30c364b3da36766749594740a5723212.png (249x255, 13.29K)

Just replace Founding Father with Enlightenment thinkers and America with France in your diatribe and you literally have the post-modern garbage that has been hobbling the Left for the past 40 years. If you're going to go this route then you might as well be consistent and throw out the Jacobins too, since they were bourgeois after all and played a most important role in the creation of the French state which naturally led to French imperialism today.

Wow, what bullshit. You do know that the monarchical European states tried even harder than America to keep slavery? Britain didn't abolish slavery until 1838. Spanish Cuba did not abolish slavery until the 18-fucking-90s and monarchical Brazil didn't abolish it until the 1880s with the fall of the monarchy and the founding of the Republic.

Most chattel black slaves from Africa were imported into territory controlled by monarchical European regimes. There wasn't even a state with gradual abolition in the Americas until the founding of the US in the 1770s. American-style gradual abolition was also favored by many Latin American countries usually with more success than in the US itself

Given that the French and Haitian revolutions happened before the US revolution did, it is complete counter-factual speculation to suppose that they would have happened if the American revolution never did, and somehow, someway, although they didn't eliminate slavery in real history, actually end it for real this time.

Most of the second half of your post is complete counterfactual speculation that isn't even worth replying to.

*happened after

There’s a good chance the war would have simply worn on until the soldiers turned their weapons on their officers. If some conclusion was reached, it would have been more of a negotiation. Either way, it would have left the great powers in a much, much weaker position and ill equipped to deal with an uprising.

The French government is not the same state as the one founded by the Jacobins. When I say the American state is their government, I’m not speaking vaguely in terms of it inspired by them or being an independent American state or whatnot, but that it’s literally the same government they founded. We’re on the 115th Congress and 45th President now. It is actually their government, the same one they created in 1789.

In addition, the British pushed for abolition of slavery and, in fact, offered freedom to American slaves during the war. Also, nice idealism, the material conditions that produced the French Revolution were still there, the French coffers would still have been emptied out by the War of Spanish Succession and France would still have gotten hit by a famine.

So? We all acknowledge that in the modern era the founding fathers and the government they created in reactionary. This is simply a question of what their dialectical role in history was, and it’s impossible to deny the positive role they played in subverting the feudal order and giving rise to liberal capitalism as the dominant political force, which in turn gives rise to the conditions that create socialism. From a Marxist point of view their historical role was objectively progressive. As for their use as a propaganda tool, I seriously doubt that the libs have made any real effort to appropriate the founding fathers, on the contrary they have been raving about how they were le ebil white men. Meanwhile old school American socialists specifically referenced the American war of independence and founding fathers in their speeches and songs.

The only reason the entire French Army just didn't abandon their trenches and walk home is because the promise of American reinforcements existed. The Germans would have won the war if they weren't autistic enough to miss that the blockade had the exact opposite effect of why it was instigated, as it just led to the US throwing supplies at the Entente out of anger.