LARPer fags and muh Civil War

Some alt-right retard posted this claiming the whole muh cibel whar shtick, when will they realize they don't really fight for freedom? at least according to the comments

Attached: 33854192_2028849617355912_9023829943636721664_n.jpg (320x320, 19.52K)

Other urls found in this thread:

A lot of poor southerners have good reasons for feeling nostalgia for the confederacy. Not because the confederacy treated everyone better than the union, but because the confederacy represents a fight against the american establishment. Wherever there's poor, there's people wishing for a better system. That's what we have here. After we lost the civil war, yankees raped our women, stuck propaganda in our schools, and moved here in droves to take advantage of us. It wasn't until recently that you might've ever heard about the march to the sea and the burning of atlanta, even in the worst places. If communists really want to appeal to the people here, they'd better give the confederacy a red coat of paint, and tell people about how the south historically fought against the bourgeois industrialized north. People are overlooking the role we played in the unions, appalachians especially. They're also overlooking the fact that the north was just as racist. Slavery was getting abolished everywhere, it was a matter of time before we gave up on it. We didn't fight the war to own slaves, in fact a majority of confederates never owned slaves. We fought the war because the north wasn't respecting states' rights as they should have. Their it goes all the way back to federalism vs. anti-federalism, and the north always wanted to be the federal government.

southern racism only strengthened because of how capitalism essentially made it look like it was blacks taking away their freedoms and making life shit, when it was capitalism itself doing that.

I dont really know what the american establishment was like in the north at the time so if you can give me a run down of why the south would secede besides the economics of slavery and such be my guest. im not asking these in bad faith im genuinely curious

I mean I can understand that as an excellent strategy to win over south-eastern proletarians but i'm more or less wondering about the whole slavery aspect of the civil war. Most liberals and radlibs would point out "but muh southern slavery" while confederate nostalgia fueled semi-larpers(?) would say "states rights". If we want to have a unified working class movement we need to address both concerns. Keep in mind i'm a south-western autist from arizona. I don't necessarily know much of the south east's history in regards to secession besides muh slavery.

Tell me more, now your making me much more curious

Okay I MUST now know about this, I wasn't taught the southerns perspective of the civil war even though I live in a conservative state.


I don't really know about that part, maybe not a majority, but still a significant percentage according to the 1860's census

This part I totally understand, the thing i'm curious about is how we can put the idea of individual freedoms back where they belong with the other leftist principles.

Attached: 18080d5759e389b476133e0c3cc3a3ee415d0f4f389a4043154bd6fefded2d77.png (2700x3000, 9.64M)

Lmao the Confederacy was fighting for its own ruling class who treated the poor whites like dirt and constantly bought up their land

They operate off a different definition than yours, obviously, retard

That's nonsense. Lincoln was elected on a program of confining slavery to existing states, not abolishing it. The slaveowners replied by seceding precisely because the slave system required continued territorial expansion to offset problems like soil erosion, and because the admission of more and more free (i.e. non-slave) states would have ended the political power of slaveowners in places like the Senate.

There's no need to give "a red coat of paint" to the Confederacy. One can praise the efforts of those in the South who fought against the Confederate secession, from guerrilla leaders to slaves who fled north to join the Union Army.

And an overwhelming majority of American soldiers sent abroad aren't connected to arms manufacturers and other corporations that grow rich off of imperialism. What's your point? There was certainly growing dissatisfaction in Confederate army ranks as poor whites realized they were being used, e.g. a North Carolina soldier wrote: "We are fiting for the Rich mans property. . . the pour man got nothin to fite for. . . the Big men at home a setting studdying how to cheat & speculate out of the pour soulgers Wives." (quoted in William C. Davis, Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America, p. 222)

I'll apologize but I'm not going to cite direct book sources since I'm just givin' you a general gist of things
The North was not actually that interested in removing slavery. There were activists but it was relatively minor and politically irrelevant. The main issue was that the industrialized Northern states wanted to have a Federalized Union. Which due to the capitalist nature of the USA was essentially a nationalized monopoly on everything. This irked the Southern politicians because they lived in a similar manner to European feudal lords, owning vast swathes of land, with servants, slaves and people who paid to work the land, something the North lacked due to less arable land and higher industrialization. Thus they decided to act on the states rights and secede from the Union.
Black freedom became an issue because the North was hoping to acquire a fresh bout of votes and support by giving slaves some political freedom.
Definitely, however the American south is predominantly White, with a large Latino Minority. Berating them for slavery and ignoring the main point of the war alienates them and antagonizes them, when in reality one must take a softer approach - acknowledge their struggle but also point out in a fair manner what they did wrong. That way we can get proletariat onto our side, where they can be further informed and made class-conscious.
Partly to do with the Louisiana Purchase to put it shortly. Without that and without the South in general the Appalachians would have been cut off.
The North really was just as racist. They won and since the latter half of the Civil War was promising Black freedom in return for fighting for the Union, they don't mention it in the textbooks.
Britain abolished slavery before the USA and several other European colonial nations also abolished them. The USA was essentially the last stronghold of chattel slavery.
8% of Southern families owning slaves is significant?
By having it the same way the USSR did with its republics. They were independent in many aspects. If they so wished they could be separate like Mongolia was

And the Union troops weren't?

Who said anything about Lincoln? I was merely pointing out that slavery was being abolished around the world such as by Britain and it was only matter of time before the same happened in the USA. Lincolns policies do not exclude that occurring.
Which would eventually lead to the necessity of abolition of slavery in the face of socio-political and economic loss.
You might want to read the thread about the Memorial day tweet made by the US-army. Yes, troops most certainly take part in imperialism but they are neither class-conscious nor fully to blame. Their actions can be condemned but they must also be acknowledged as ignorant. Many US troops who go to afghanistan end up killing people out of sheer fear because they're thrown into a place where they're hated and unwanted and they can't leave or go against orders without risking court martial or serious injury.
And that's the point. People were fighting for the idea of freedom, even if they were mislead. They meant well and that ought to be acknowledged. Simply screaming in their face about how "they're horrible racists" does nothing for the modern South. People in this day and age recognize the crime of slavery and reminding them and blaming ALL Southerners for something done by a small percentage of rich fucks is alienating proles who aren't class-conscious enough to actually understand the issue.

Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery when he was elected. Despite this, the slaveowners rebelled anyway because they knew that even his moderate program of restricting slavery to where it already existed would have caused a "peaceful" economic demise.

Yes, which is my point: slaveowners were faced with the prospect of a slow, gradual elimination of their way of life. They reacted by seceding and trying to perpetuate it by force.

Your other points (that troops "are neither class-conscious nor fully to blame," that blaming everyone in the South for slavery is dumb, etc.) are not anything I disputed.

The point I'm arguing against is this idea of rehabilitating the Confederacy and trying to appropriate it. The defeat of the Confederate secession was a good thing. Marx recognized this and America's first Marxists joined the Union Army with with that understanding.

Well no shit, what the fuck am I supposed to do then? How do you convince a bunch of free market worshiping retards who only want to suck off porky's cock what the leftists definition of freedom is?

Why not use it as a stepping stone then? Most people in the south east already think the confederacy was about states rights (typically). Maybe you can use that whole states rights mindset to fight for leftist populism / real socialism?

is for

Because Marxists don't fight for "states rights" and it doesn't help at all to sanitize the Confederacy by portraying the secession as a valiant effort to preserve "states rights" rather than a reactionary revolt to perpetuate an archaic mode of production.

Most people in the South have been subjected to over a hundred years of "Lost Cause" mythology after the Northern bourgeoisie teamed up with the Southern planters to betray Reconstruction, screwing over both poor whites and ex-slaves. It is among the tasks of Marxists to expose the myths promoted by the exploiting classes of the South, who try to erase class struggle from Southern history except as something artificially stirred up by "carpetbaggers" and other "outside agitators."

Shouldn't it just be framed as workers rights? I mean the old socialist movements gained steam because people actually gave a shit about the working class. Now its all radlibs and idpol shit. The thing that I feel is going to be most important in the future is to get retard Zig Forums LARPers from stealing the word socialist.

So i'm taking this as a no for the whole "using states rights" idea for anti-establishment populism.


ANd that's irrelevant. Abolition was coming whether Lincoln was intending it or not.

I agree with the rest of what you're saying i guess we're sort of of the same idea just didn;t realize it.

No, they're clearly two separate concepts, and the Confederacy clearly had no interest in workers' rights.

Correct. Why would American-style "states rights" be something Marxists would support? Earlier in the thread someone brought up Soviet republics, but those were based on the existence of nations and nationalities; the actual administrative divisions within these republics were nothing like the states of the US.

If you want to advocate workers' rights against neoliberalism then that's well and good, but it has nothing to do with the concept of "states rights." The capitalists in American states have used their "rights" to compete with one-another in adopting the most anti-worker legislation.

But once again, I brought up Lincoln precisely because he wasn't an abolitionist. The Republican Party did not advocate abolishing slavery. This did not prevent the slaveowners from seceding as soon as the GOP entered office, precisely because said slaveowners were not willing to acquiesce to the sort of gradual economic extinction that Lincoln's victory portended.

Ik that, throw me a bone here. I'm just trying to figure out how to get my fellow burgertards to stop threatening civil war over retarded bathroom shit.

to trick le burgs

I don't advocate for states rights as an actual viable concept, I just want to use it to be put to good use. Like maybe using that anti establishment energy to actually further leftist goals.

Burger capitalists have always been the absolute worst, that's why I want to use the big dick proletarian energy that right now is focused on muh jews and instead focus it on shit that actually makes a difference. Basically redirect their anger.

when I say trick le burgs, i mean appropriate states rights.

(me again)
to be leftist

I can't think of anything other than simply explaining why Marxist analysis of capitalism is sound and why Democrats and Republicans are both anti-worker.

As Marx and Engels noted in the Manifesto, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims." If you start trying to dress up Marxism as something it isn't, people are going to start wondering why and see this as proof that Marxists are dishonest.

And as I said, I just don't see how "states rights" can be appropriated by Marxists. What would that mean in practice? How would it benefit workers?

Dissident right here, OP is correct.
The South was abandoning slavery, be it for moral/economic reasons or a combination is up for debate.

Point is, they were abandoning it anyway.
Slavery is a trash economic system.
The South had a massive white unemployment problem due to slavery.
Majority of whites hated slaves not because they were different, but because they did the jobs they needed to do to raise a family.

I repeat, slavery has been recognized as a terrible economic system for 100s of years, yet, here we are… much slavery…

What is "The South" in this case? How was "The South" "abandoning slavery"?

Listen, Here's your (you) k.

I'm not falling for that passive aggressive troll of doing everything for you.

It's called Google, or team YOU to yourself.
Do your own research!

Point is, I remember that in parts of the "Confederacy" white unemployment was between 15-25% depending on where you were on a state by state level.

The notion that people literally born into captivity to do labor people like you do elsewhere for a wage shouldn't be hard for Communists to understand how that would breed resentment.

I have. Edward E. Baptist's "The Half Has Never Been Told" points out how slavery continued to be profitable right up into 1860 and that "despite something of a northern consensus that slavery was backward and inefficient, and despite the hard times of the previous decade, plenty of southern readers and talkers answered the question of whether or not the South could continue to use slavery as its recipe for modern economic development with a resounding yes." He adds, "By 1860, the eight wealthiest states in the United States, ranked by wealth per white person, were South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Connecticut, Alabama, Florida, and Texas⁠—seven states created by cotton's march west and south, plus one that, as the most industrialized state in the Union, profited disproportionately from the gearing of northern factory equipment to the southwestern whipping-machine."

Again, where do you see "The South" "abandoning slavery"? You didn't give a single example.

To add to what I wrote. asking how you define "The South" has nothing to do with research. You can't simply that "The South" was "abandoning slavery" without clarifying what the hell that even means. Clearly the slaveowners weren't abandoning their system, and Southern capitalists weren't exactly up in arms struggling to abolish the slave system either.

Sherman didn't do enough.

we will win the vibil war my fellow comerades!!!!!
we will destroy the fashist scum in a moment with our felow negroid allies
i love uhhh trannys
and sonic

watch out for sparrow cumrags!

Attached: 0h49k65wwtkz.jpg (607x608, 49.27K)

So, even though places like California in US with their high "wealth" generation yet massive poverty & say, Ireland with it's essentially tax Haven status massive amounts of "wealth" funnelled through it, yet still has among the largest debt in Europe.
How are you measuring this "wealth?"

Bare in mind, you're essentially arguing a heavily industrialized society was if not equal, then inferior to a agricultural society, yet, still won some how…

Good point.
Its an anti federalist stance, I thought it could be useful.
I'm assuming building up duel power on the local level under the guise of "states rights" or using both article 9 of the constitution "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." or using amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I'm betting on duel power to combat federalism while radicalizing individual states.

I just think people claiming they want civil war over trannys in bathrooms is retarded.

The point is that slavery was very profitable for the slaveowners, that slaveowners considered slavery perfectly compatible with modern economies as of the 19th century (no matter how wrong these slaveowners were), and that there's no basis for claiming that "The South" was "abandoning slavery."

No I'm not. I'm arguing against the notion that slavery was somehow on its way out in 1860.

When Lincoln was elected on a platform of restricting slavery to its existing territories, he actually would have set into motion the gradual decline of slavery, because the slaveowners would have been deprived of access to new territories (and certain slave states, as Marx noted, derived their wealth precisely by selling slaves to new territories.)

Realizing that Lincoln's victory meant the slow demise of slavery, the slaveowners rose up to defend their archaic system.

So, yet again, what the hell are you talking about with this "The South was abandoning slavery" nonsense?

But the issues that divided the Federalists and anti-Federalists are not relevant to the question of capitalism versus socialism.

wouldn't accomplishing a socialist revolution be easier with a divided America? Not political ideology wise but states being uncooperative.


Attached: CE3536B0-00EA-4805-89FE-64FD2831EA4B.gif (567x473, 26.49K)

It could also be harder, because people would rather identify with Mississippi or Vermont or something rather than a united, strong workers' state capable of fending off external threats.

Also, to quote William Z. Foster writing back in 1935: "Because of the highly developed 'states rights' principle in government, the workers faced government oppression (troops, police, hostile court decisions, anti-labor legislature) mainly from the individual state governments (until recent years), and this tended to scatter the workers' political struggle and to hinder the growth of a national mass labor party. Hence, American labor parties of a mass character have always been upon either a local, state or regional basis."

Fuck it, you probably have a better plan than I thought up. You make some great points. Consider my autistic plan discarded lol

Civil War in America is pretty unlikely. Either the current “two-party” goverment stays in power forever, or their is a relatively coup/revolution that establishes their rule within a few weeks.

Things have changed a lot sense 1935. The country is a lot more centralized, and while state guards still exist, they are de facto integrated into the army nowadays.

Jews make me sick

Everyone says schtick

Is nobody going to talk about the North feeling threatened by the South's desire to expand into slave-run factories so that they could bypass the need to export to the North and sell textiles on the international markets directly?

Yeah this is part of what I quoted from here:

Slaveowners and apologists of slavery were arguing in 1860 that their system was still full of vigor, not doomed. It's why the notion that slavery would have simply went away on its own without violence is mistaken. Slavery as an institution was more profitable in 1860 than it had been in earlier years.

Having said that, the main concern of the North was that the South was coveting the territories of the West, wanting to create territories and states for the further spread of slavery to the detriment of the Northern bourgeoisie and farmers who wanted these lands for themselves.

This implies that rural societies like the CSA are somehow morally superior to industrialised ones which is not the case.
As communists we should be striving towards a centralised, industrialised and technologically driven society, reviving nostalgia dreams of rural backwaters is not going to help us to that end

This is true. Sherman was an industry corporate capitalist lackey

The Confederacy effectively was the American Establishment. The only way you could come to this conclusion is if "cOnSeRvAtIvEs ArE tHe ReAl ReVoLuTiOnArIeS!"

Yeah, because the south was crypto-feudal and economically backwards as hell. Any Marxist worth their salt will know that it's better to have capitalism than to have feudalism or slavery; that capitalism at least paves the way for economic progress and socialist revolution. If by some crazy quirk of history the South had won (and they had no fucking shot at winning, but let's just say they did), then America today would be about 100 years behind the rest of the world.

And that's a bad thing?

I just want fascist LARPers to rise up already so we can just face them and put them down instead of this gay keyboard war.