[OFFLIST] RE: [lbo-talk] Thanksgiving

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

Michael:
> "Didn't give two shits" is simply not true, Wojtek.  There is a lot of
> delicate argument to be made about when and why Lincoln finally made
the
> Emancipation Proclamation when he did.  (I personally recommend James

The "two shits" hyperbole was meant to underscore the line that slavery
was not the only, or even the main reason behind the civil war, as most
modern hagiographic accounts want us to believe.  As I see it, there are
two different phenomena lumped together - the secession of the South and
the North's decision to fight it.  Inasmuch as I despise the Southern
social order, I do recognize their right to secession.  Likewise,
whatever we might think of the Northern economy and society, their value
systems and Lincoln's personality, the fact of the matter is that the
North fought an imperial war that was rationalized by the values of the
Enlightenment. Not unlikely the imperial wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

The point is, therefore, to separate these two phenomena and do not let
one overshadow the other.  It is not dissimilar to the ACLU stance on
the Nazi parade in Skokie, IL: no matter how despicable an ideology
might be, using the power of the state to censor it is even worse evil

What I find objectionable is that many Leftists fall for this imperial
logic and exonerate the war acts of the empire on the grounds of
disapproval of the social order of the attacked.  That logic would only
be justified if the imperial war brought actual progress (cf. Marx's
argument about the British rule in India).  But I do not think that this
is the case of the United States.  While the US occupation of German,
Japan and South Korea did result in the installation of  more
progressive (vis a vis the status quo) regimes - this was mainly a
result of the "communist threat" which made the US ruling class tread
very lightly in those parts of the world.  This can be demonstrated by
the "counterfactual" of those places where such "threat" was either
absent or not sufficiently significant (cf. Latin America) - under that
condition, the US supported the most reactionary forces and
institutions.  

I also think that the effect of the civil war on the condition of
African Americans was negligible, at least in the long run.  This can be
inferred from comparing US to South Africa (no "anti-slavery" civil
war).  Both countries went through similar trajectories: apartheid and
civil rights struggle and both ended with a more or less same political
outcome.  If anything, SA Blacks today have more political power than US
Blacks, which could be used to argue that the civil war actually halted
the political empowerment of Blacks in the long run.

> I think the flaw in this argument is that it ignores how much more
capital
> intensive the army is now.  The skills learned there don't empower you
at
> all militarily after you leave.  They only work with battlefield
computer
> systems.
> 

Good point, but it is not only the fighting skills, but also organizing
skills that the Army teaches.  I would say that the latter are superior
to the former in organizing civil disobedience.  

What is more, you counterargument does not address the de facto
apartheid system that the US empire creates - and that apartheid, plus
the growing number of second and third class "citizens" will likely
provide fertile grounds for civil unrest and growing centrifugal
tendencies within the US.  

The bottom line is that these centrifugal tendencies, if properly
nourished, can offer the best hope for forcing any changes in the US.
If that analysis is correct, the best thing the Lefties can do is to
hold their noses and form alliances with the libertarians and the "state
rights" crowd.

Wojtek