Armed struggle is an option in liberation struggles of nationally oppressed groups, pacifism to the contrary notwithstanding.
Charles Brown
Detroit
>>> <Apsken at aol.com> 11/12 10:23 AM >>>
eric wrote:
<< Questioning the motives and tactics of the North is not saying that
fighting slavery is wrong; >>
Nonsense. That is exactly what was argued here, for anyone who paid attention.
Karl Marx questioned the motives and tactics of the Union, but without the implied sanctimony and historical revisionism posted here on LBO. So did W.E.B. DuBois. But their support was unequivocal, not conditional. The point that matters is that the Union's war effort became the chosen vehicle for the slaves' war for emancipation. As Abraham Lincoln himself attested, had that not been so the Union would have lost the war in two weeks.
For supposed Marxists and socialists to evaluate the Civil War from the perspective of the ruling class while ignoring the slaves' point of view -- and only from that perspective, as was evident in the foregoing discussion and is equally evident in eric's unsubtle defense of it -- is the subject of my protest, which is perfectly pertinent. Despite eric's breast-beating, the LBO debate did focus on the question of whether the Civil War should have been fought, and whether the war was an appropriate deployment of resources, or whether instead slavery should have been allowed to wither away. And the disgraceful Cockburn item that provoked the discussion suggests that the war was unnecessary. It would be even more disgraceful to proclaim support for abolition up until, but not including, the war.
Ken Lawrence