The Right and the Left need each other - debate

[TheReal_ND]

Nope, that's not it neither, the Yankees are not on the Left, and the dogma is not pro-worker anti-aristocracy, it's merely good ol' fashioned American triumphalism. Again, you're trying to impose your Cultural Marxist Eurodogma on an American paradigm, but it just doesn't fit.

The Yankees are a Banking Aristocracy, hardly pro-worker, looking down upon everyone from a very great height, on Wall Street. The nexus of Yankee power, in on Manhattan Island, and nobody in the history of the world, has strung more leftists to the lampposts, than the Yankees.

And before you invoke Hitler and Stalin on the Eastern Front, just remember, first the Yankees backed Hitler, then they backed Stalin. Who do you think paid for the Eastern Front? That's right, was the Yankees. Them Yankees have always pitted the collectivist workers against one another, divide and conquer for the win.

Hmmm...

Cultural Marxist Eurodogma?

I would say I'm summarizing a pretty standard reading of the American Civil War.
The North was anti-slavery because slavery was bad for the Northern capitalist system...
Both the independent landholder side of the equation... because the slaveholders owned massive plantations and independent landholders couldn't compete and industry that paid wages that didn't want to compete with slaveholders.
Two competing economic systems that didn't tolerate one another went to war.
The North had a (relatively small) left whose values were abolitionist and prolabour and a right who didn't give a fig about either certainly. The North cautiously courted abolitionist sentiment but often didn't trust it.

The north was into manufacturing not cottoning. Secretely they were getting tired of all the escaped slaves showing up in the north and wanted a place to send them back to (did in a lot of cases through deconstruction hence the black belt.) Very minor but important detail.

[Smitty-48]

I would say I'm summarizing a pretty standard reading of the American Civil War.

Except that's all based on myth.

The North was anti-slavery because slavery was bad for the Northern capitalist system...

The Yankees were for slavery until they weren't, and they weren't against it, until the Confederacy tried to secede like George Washington and Co. to assert an Empire of Liberty of their very own.

Both the independent landholder side of the equation... because the slaveholders owned massive plantations and independent landholders couldn't compete and industry that paid wages that didn't want to compete with slaveholders.

The Planting Aristocracy were the indepenent land owners who read the market and made a mint, the Nathan Bedford Forrest's were no aristocrats, until they became land owners independent of the banks.

Two competing economic systems that didn't tolerate one another went to war.

The two economic systems were one in the same, the Yankees built their Empire of Liberty on cotton, tobacco and slaves, they simply went to war against the independant land owners therein, to impose a Supremacy Clause on them.

The North had a (relatively small) left whose values were abolitionist and prolabour and a right who didn't give a fig about either certainly. The North cautiously courted abolitionist sentiment but often didn't trust it.

Copperheads and Doughfaces sympathized with the Confederates, and the Abolitionists were no Lefties, you're calling John D. Rockefeller a Lefty?

As for Smitty's American Triumphalism dogma... sounds like some DIY political philosophy you cooked up in that crazy noggin' of yours.

Crazy for applying critical thinking to your Cultural Marxist fallacies? Methinks not.

[Speaker to Animals]

Abolitionists were not "left". "Left" was the slave lords. Democrats in the northern cities kept the poor workers on the vote plantation same as today. They claimed they were looking out for the little guy, who was just trying to get by to feed his family, while the republicans wanted to free millions of slaves to flood the labor pool and drive down wages. Democrats have been doing this stuff for a long time. They are good at it.

[Smitty-48]

In the American context, Andrew Jackson's Democrat Party was the angry populist Left, power to the people, Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party was the economic royalist Right, power to the crown.

Black persons, were not Americans, they were not even persons, so Left-Right never applied to them.

[Smitty-48]

See, bear in mind, power to the people, in America, includes the power of the people to be a planting aristocracy, free in their individual sovereignty; to live like kings, defended from a crown by their states rights therein.

Americans never revolted against the Crown, to form a Commune, quite the opposite in fact.

General George Washington; the Original Virginia Seceshe, British Imperialist, Planting Aristocrat, Richest Man in America.

Long live the King George's of Washington, eh? Wot? Indeed.

[DrYouth]

See, bear in mind, power to the people, in America, includes the power of the people to be a planting aristocracy.

The power to be a planting aristocracy?

You see Smitty... no one else talks like this.

This is Smitty jargon.

What the hell does that even mean?

[Smitty-48]

See, bear in mind, power to the people, in America, includes the power of the people to be a planting aristocracy.

The power to be a planting aristocracy?

You see Smitty... no one else talks like this.

This is Smitty jargon.

What the hell does that even mean?

It means that your attempts to apply revision by Cultural Marxist Eurobolshie bafflegab, to the paradigm of the American revolutions, is utter nonsense on the face of it, left away from the Crown, in America, is not towards a French Revolutionary Commune, and never was, but you don't get that, because despite being born on this continent, you're really just a European Foreign Devil in the end, you're not an American, you don't know them, you don't understand them.

Andrew Breitbart is entirely correct, the Champers Bolshies, are fundamentally un-American, and in fact, bent on destroying America as it was designed and intended, enemies of the American Revolution therein.

I dare say, even your supposed fealty to the British Crown, is merely a function of your knee jerk Cultural Marxist Anti-Americanism.

[Smitty-48]

Again bear in mind, the Lost Cause is not about slavery, the victorious Yankees allowed for de facto indentured slavery if not de jure, in the North and in the South, so both the Planting Aristocrats and the Banking Aristocrats still made out like bandits therein.

The Lost Cause is not about Emancipation, the Lost Cause is the revanchism for the Supremacy Clause, not the Contraband of War, and for the Yankees ignominiously burning Dixie to the ground, as surely as they did Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though not against Foriegn Devils, but against their own kin.

[MilSpecs]

Abolitionists were not "left". "Left" was the slave lords. Democrats in the northern cities kept the poor workers on the vote plantation same as today. They claimed they were looking out for the little guy, who was just trying to get by to feed his family, while the republicans wanted to free millions of slaves to flood the labor pool and drive down wages. Democrats have been doing this stuff for a long time. They are good at it.

Anything that deviates from tradition is 'left' (progressive). 'Right' in this context would be anyone who wanted to keep things the way they were (slavery in some states and prohibition in others).

Also, the Great Migration didn't take place until the 1900s, so obviously millions of ex-slaves didn't flood the labor pool and drive down wages. They stayed where they had already been working.

[Fife]

Smits, I've been trying to think of a better way to name the Counter-Revolution at Philadelphia in '87; especially in the context of explaining the meaning of the "Civil War" as a new revolution. Any ideas?

[BTW, isn't it interesting to find out how truly ahistorical many of our old DCF-mates are on the basic meaning of "left" v. "right?"]

:drunk: