>Now finally, many among the LBO group are arguing that those who stood and
>fought gallantly against chattel slavery were either wrong or misguided, or at
>best wasted their efforts. (Providing podiums for Nazis is noble, but
>expropriating slaveowners at gunpoint isn't? This is negation of the negation
>with a vengeance.)
This is absolutely crazy. NO ONE has said that anyone who "fought gallantly" against slavery was wrong, misguided, or wasting their time. The debate was about whether the war was about ending slavery at all and whether slavery would have died on its own without the need for Civil War. The debate is not really very subtle, but apparently Mr. Lawrence only lets his brain work in simplistic, black-and-white, morality-play ways. Questioning the motives and tactics of the North is not saying that fighting slavery is wrong; this is like saying that protesting Israel's destruction of Palestine is anti-Semitic. It's ridiculous. And then to throw in this...
>If even the magnificent movement to abolish slavery -- which
>began in slave quarters, Underground Railroad "stations," maroon camps,
>pulpits, and parlor meetings in solidarity with Amistad mutineers, then spread
>to the fiery plains of Kansas and the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, long before
>Edmund Ruffin fired the symbolic first shot at Fort Sumter -- failed to merit
>respect, what cause might ever stir them to the barricades?
is a non-sequiter of the highest form. No one questioned the Abolitionists or the morality behind their actions; what was being questioned was the policy of the Union government. To pretend the former allows you to make a fine intellectual-moral-rhetorical flourish, but it does not characterize the discussion going on on this list. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what is being said, but I won't misrepresent it in order to score a triumph.
>No wonder there is such pessimism here about the prospects
>for revolution.
Again, where do you get this? At least the people on this list are discussing the character of the revolution, what works and what doesn't, which is the best course of action, etc. Not everyone is so sure of what constitutes a revolution and how to bring it about, as apparently you are. This is all called debate and discussion, and methinks it is healthy for people to undergo that. But by all means, please enlighten us on how to be optimistic about the revolution...beyond the undergrad mindset of "because we need one." That is obvious enough.
>Accompanying these crackpot "left" analyses is a palpable contempt for
>activists that appears to be broadly shared among LBOers, regardless of their
>fierce debates on matters of doctrine and party affiliation. Does anyone here
>care about real conditions of life among working and oppressed people, and how
>we are struggling to bring change?
Please. Do you realize how arrogant this sounds? The subtext of this whole paragraph is, Follow me I know the way. Is this the approach you bring to your union organizing? If so, pity the poor workingman.
eric