1. the civil war was fought over the issue of slavery, the tariff thing is a nonsensical conspiracy theory promulgated by dixie fetishists and allied to racist historiography
2. capitalists are different from the rest of us in that they own the means of production. that's it, as individuals they aren't on the whole smarter than anyone else or better at predicting the future
3. related to 1. ideological fashions and ethical issues, no matter how popular, belie economic and material forces as the ultimate drivers of history
so the EZ-PZ marxist explanation might run something like this:
- northern industrial interests wanted to make more money
- slavery was opposed to their interests because slaves can't be wage laborers and you can't realize surplus value as easily cos they can't buy the commodities you produce
- they opposed the slaveholders, the slaveholders opposed them, and war resulted
there are holes big enough for Sherman to march through here. the slaves were eventually turned into industrial wage laborers, but this didn't happen until the great migrations like sixty years later. if we believe the northern industrial interests were trying to turn the slaves into a big consumer market and source of labor then we have to also believe they were practically clairvoyant and throw premise 2 out of the window. not very HM. also kind of stupid from any realistic perspective.
on the other hand, it seems plausible enough that your northern businessman wanted a tariff to protect his babey manufacturing from more mature industries overseas (basically England), and your plantation owner wanted free trade to keep his manufactured imports cheap (and his cotton competitive sorta). no clairvoyance required. except then you jump into bed with the conspiracy theorists of the Klan. oops. and progressive historians managed to explode this myth by pointing out that nobody in Congress gets particularly buttmad about a damn tariff, people didn't pile into Kansas and risk their lives for a tariff, and the north could have quite easily cut a deal with the south to protect northern industries in return for a tacit agreement to leave the peculiar institution alone. five million slaves was a hill of beans next to 20 million free northerners
finally the old liberal explanation, that the good people of the north basically thought that slavery was a cruel institution that caused terrible suffering and had to be ended on moral grounds, doesn't seem compatible with 3. they can't all be right, tell me what i'm fucking up here, and hopefully this will be a nice educational discussion between my wonderful marxofriends here at my favorite place the rHizzonE
Edited by littlegreenpills ()
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.
littlegreenpills posted:there are holes big enough for Sherman to march through here. the slaves were eventually turned into industrial wage laborers, but this didn't happen until the great migrations like sixty years later
illuminati plays the long game
RBC posted:ill have to bone up by reading the civil war wikipedia page cause this thread took an unexpected turn and my dildo knowledge far exceeds my civil war knowledge
you've probably figured this out by now but boning up on the civil war is nowhere near as fun as boning up on dildos
littlegreenpills posted:the slaves were eventually turned into industrial wage laborers, but this didn't happen until the great migrations like sixty years later. if we believe the northern industrial interests were trying to turn the slaves into a big consumer market and source of labor then we have to also believe they were practically clairvoyant and throw premise 2 out of the window.
just because they tried to do it doesnt mean that it was going to happen immediately so i dont think this is really particularly paradoxical?
roseweird posted:it probably helps to read history in light of the observation that every one at every time is generally acting on beliefs and ideals that are completely wrong
i'm sorry but this is wrong.
littlegreenpills posted:- northern industrial interests wanted to make more money
- slavery was opposed to their interests because slaves can't be wage laborers and you can't realize surplus value as easily cos they can't buy the commodities you produce
- they opposed the slaveholders, the slaveholders opposed them, and war resulted
this is exactly what ive been saying for years, along with all the non-Marxist racists i know. i dont really like glass dildos that much (as far as dildos go) because the total lack of friction makes them pretty much the sexual equivalent of smoking an ultra-light cigarette
tpaine posted:roseweird posted:it probably helps to read history in light of the observation that every one at every time is generally acting on beliefs and ideals that are completely wrong
wow good job with the people hate mrs. 340 lb shut in whose body is glued via piss and shit to a desk chair and who conveniently cooks up a realistically negative viewpoint of the human race to justify this
lol ur pretty defensive about being the world's gooniest goon, a Cynical Misanthrope who wants to burst the myopic bubble of inherent human goodness that all the idiots and fuckers around you can't see beyond and also to transcribe youtube videos all day for some reason
littlegreenpills posted:ive been scratching my head recently on how to do a proper historically materialist analysis of the US Civil War, i mean its deep and long term causes. i mean boiling it down i estimate we have three premises or rules of thumb here, two as general principles and one particular to the civil war circumstances
1. the civil war was fought over the issue of slavery, the tariff thing is a nonsensical conspiracy theory promulgated by dixie fetishists and allied to racist historiography
2. capitalists are different from the rest of us in that they own the means of production. that's it, as individuals they aren't on the whole smarter than anyone else or better at predicting the future
3. related to 1. ideological fashions and ethical issues, no matter how popular, belie economic and material forces as the ultimate drivers of history
so the EZ-PZ marxist explanation might run something like this:
- northern industrial interests wanted to make more money
- slavery was opposed to their interests because slaves can't be wage laborers and you can't realize surplus value as easily cos they can't buy the commodities you produce
- they opposed the slaveholders, the slaveholders opposed them, and war resulted
there are holes big enough for Sherman to march through here. the slaves were eventually turned into industrial wage laborers, but this didn't happen until the great migrations like sixty years later. if we believe the northern industrial interests were trying to turn the slaves into a big consumer market and source of labor then we have to also believe they were practically clairvoyant and throw premise 2 out of the window. not very HM. also kind of stupid from any realistic perspective.
on the other hand, it seems plausible enough that your northern businessman wanted a tariff to protect his babey manufacturing from more mature industries overseas (basically England), and your plantation owner wanted free trade to keep his manufactured imports cheap (and his cotton competitive sorta). no clairvoyance required. except then you jump into bed with the conspiracy theorists of the Klan. oops. and progressive historians managed to explode this myth by pointing out that nobody in Congress gets particularly buttmad about a damn tariff, people didn't pile into Kansas and risk their lives for a tariff, and the north could have quite easily cut a deal with the south to protect northern industries in return for a tacit agreement to leave the peculiar institution alone. five million slaves was a hill of beans next to 20 million free northerners
finally the old liberal explanation, that the good people of the north basically thought that slavery was a cruel institution that caused terrible suffering and had to be ended on moral grounds, doesn't seem compatible with 3. they can't all be right, tell me what i'm fucking up here, and hopefully this will be a nice educational discussion between my wonderful marxofriends here at my favorite place the rHizzonE
yo this has already been done
http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-Civil-War-Struggles-ebook/dp/B007OWQN7Q/
despite the retardo name it's legit good
tpaine posted:deadken posted:tpaine posted:roseweird posted:it probably helps to read history in light of the observation that every one at every time is generally acting on beliefs and ideals that are completely wrong
wow good job with the people hate mrs. 340 lb shut in whose body is glued via piss and shit to a desk chair and who conveniently cooks up a realistically negative viewpoint of the human race to justify this
lol ur pretty defensive about being the world's gooniest goon, a Cynical Misanthrope who wants to burst the myopic bubble of inherent human goodness that all the idiots and fuckers around you can't see beyond and also to transcribe youtube videos all day for some reason
sorry i'm more authentic than you ken. i know it stings that i'm a bigger words failure than you are but them's the breaks.
Authentic Fuckre
this is you: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/hate-lena-dunhamyoualllovellewyndavis.html
Also death to New York
peepaw posted:littlegreenpills posted:
ive been scratching my head recently on how to do a proper historically materialist analysis of the US Civil War, i mean its deep and long term causes. i mean boiling it down i estimate we have three premises or rules of thumb here, two as general principles and one particular to the civil war circumstances
1. the civil war was fought over the issue of slavery, the tariff thing is a nonsensical conspiracy theory promulgated by dixie fetishists and allied to racist historiography
2. capitalists are different from the rest of us in that they own the means of production. that's it, as individuals they aren't on the whole smarter than anyone else or better at predicting the future
3. related to 1. ideological fashions and ethical issues, no matter how popular, belie economic and material forces as the ultimate drivers of history
so the EZ-PZ marxist explanation might run something like this:
- northern industrial interests wanted to make more money
- slavery was opposed to their interests because slaves can't be wage laborers and you can't realize surplus value as easily cos they can't buy the commodities you produce
- they opposed the slaveholders, the slaveholders opposed them, and war resulted
there are holes big enough for Sherman to march through here. the slaves were eventually turned into industrial wage laborers, but this didn't happen until the great migrations like sixty years later. if we believe the northern industrial interests were trying to turn the slaves into a big consumer market and source of labor then we have to also believe they were practically clairvoyant and throw premise 2 out of the window. not very HM. also kind of stupid from any realistic perspective.
on the other hand, it seems plausible enough that your northern businessman wanted a tariff to protect his babey manufacturing from more mature industries overseas (basically England), and your plantation owner wanted free trade to keep his manufactured imports cheap (and his cotton competitive sorta). no clairvoyance required. except then you jump into bed with the conspiracy theorists of the Klan. oops. and progressive historians managed to explode this myth by pointing out that nobody in Congress gets particularly buttmad about a damn tariff, people didn't pile into Kansas and risk their lives for a tariff, and the north could have quite easily cut a deal with the south to protect northern industries in return for a tacit agreement to leave the peculiar institution alone. five million slaves was a hill of beans next to 20 million free northerners
finally the old liberal explanation, that the good people of the north basically thought that slavery was a cruel institution that caused terrible suffering and had to be ended on moral grounds, doesn't seem compatible with 3. they can't all be right, tell me what i'm fucking up here, and hopefully this will be a nice educational discussion between my wonderful marxofriends here at my favorite place the rHizzonE
yo this has already been done
http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-Civil-War-Struggles-ebook/dp/B007OWQN7Q/
despite the retardo name it's legit good
Actually it's racist crap
swirlsofhistory posted:Actually it's racist crap
pls explain.
MadMedico posted:swirlsofhistory posted:Actually it's racist crap
pls explain.
yeah please do cuz that's not what i got from it at all
gwap posted:oh yeah that guy is deadken. was reading about you the other day, couldn't remember the name though.
this is you: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/hate-lena-dunhamyoualllovellewyndavis.html
In none of those shows does the director/writer also play the main character. I pretty sure the coen brothers are also annoying as hell but at least they know enough to cast real actors in their movies.