Insofar as the secession declarations intoned Slavery, I'd look back to the first of my two criticisms (the means vs ends question), as informative of the second.

'Of the proletariat' is the key. And no, we wouldn't be doing the same thing. You would be whitewashing the practice of owning human beings like farm animals, and I would be articulating Marxist theory. I hate to be that guy, but you're being results-oriented here when motive is exactly what's being discussed.

I'd repeat, for I think the third time, that the first criticism is categorically irrelevant. You are just failing to deal with the argument as presented. Go find some tankies on twitter to talk about this stuff, they exist and will actually espouse the positions you clearly want to engage with.

People itt insist on meeting disagreement with personal insult.

Who is not in the proletariat once the dictatorship is established, and how does that regime then qualify as "egalitarian" with them in mind?



Slavery would be the means to tranquil agrarianism, in the example, and Marxist would not come into it because we would be discussing only the "stated goal" of the Confederacy itself.

Categorically irrelevant? You are presupposing the "aims", determining for yourself what is distinct as a "means", and drawing your conclusion based upon your own set-up.



perhaps: the confederacy failed to achieve "tranquil agrarianism", in that slavery is not tranquil

just as Lenin's aim of "egalitarianism" was frustrated by the divisive privilege he relied upon to exact that end

Where did I insult you?

Well, I was going off "we would both just be", so I don't see how Marxism could but come into it. But never mind. Slavery is not non-violent. It's the war, not the slavery, that's absent in my counterfactual. Honestly not sure what part of this you don't understand.

That doesn't sound familiar, can you elaborate?

Just like the Boston rally was an enormous success that can be replicated, what we did to faxanadu in the Boston rally thread can be done to werewolf, guys.

No, I'm not doing any of these things. You have actually succeeded in convincing me that you know very little about either the Confederacy or Marxism, though, so good job (that was an insult, btw; cf. "You are not addressing my argument" and note the many contrasts and sharp absence of similarities).

Welp OK, I'm done. FWIW I unironically recommend you hit up twitter.

I understand why this distinction would make you go easier on non-Leninist socialists and communists, but not why you would want to go easier on Lenin. It's one thing (a very bad thing!) to impose brutal oppression if it's necessary to achieve your goals, but what can you say about the person who imposes a savage dictatorship incidentally when he doesn't even need to?

No. DSA is obviously democratic, so they're not Leninists. However, I'm not suggesting that all communists secretly want to murder their way to an absolute dictatorship. You do see some edgelordy references to Lenin and the Russian Revolution around left twitter these days, but I don't think that's what they're getting at.

Similarly, Lost Causers don't want to re-enslave the blacks and return to a plantation-based economy. If you asked one of them about slavery, they would sadly shake their heads, say it was a complicated situation, a peculiar institution, and that there was really just no easy answer. The point of the historical revisionism is not to literally refight the old battles and try to get back to the status quo, it's to create positive mythologies that can be used to rally support in the battles of today. The function of the Lost Cause was to create a mythology to support white political rule and Jim Crow, not re-enslavement.

The thing I am thinking about is to what extent do the more extreme elements of the left today want to rehabilitate Lenin and the early Soviet state as a positive mythology supporting current leftist politics? Or perhaps defensively to immunize themselves against their opponents invoking the horrors of communism to attack leftist ideas?

Maybe it's because you're obnoxious and argue in bad faith?

I mean, you're right that it would be as justifiable, if not more so, to be harsher on Lenin given that you applaud his aim. And not having read the book, I can't really comment. But you're still only really thinking about the means and not the end, and again, I don't say people are correct to think like this, only that I suspect they do.

Honestly, this is one of the weirdest "Dems do it tooooo" plays I've seen in a while. Leninism? For reals?

We've chatted before. I *feel* you might *feel* that I wasn't just trolling/whatev then. That I, at least at times, was actually making sense while we were chatting.

The part bolded above is a very incorrect.

That's not what's happening.

I guess I'm being a jerk to you and Bob. This forum will do that to you. You were posting about anarchy. I'm not sure who said this, maybe Proudhon, but one of then said "every anarchist is a socialist, but not every socialist is an anarchist. "

Obv the ACers are not, but that's newer or some would say, just BS.

Grunching, but, he's trying to make me look dumb for saying he's the only dude smart and savvy enough to pull off Smart Guy Centrism.

"Therefore every anarchist is a socialist but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist." ~ Adolph Fischer (1887, as quoted by Albert Parsons).

I just want to note that it's possible to see certain Marxist ideas as analytically useful without accepting the full Bible of Marx.

Positive Marxism is very good. Normative Marxism, notsomuch.

Anarchy is just mind games for the middle classes.

for the most explicit example, do a thread search for the word "coach"

I'm obnoxious and disliked, you know that, sir


but not in bad faith; please evidence the assertion or retract it

accomplished without violence, right?

The way I see it, anarchy either always exists or never exists.

Perhaps it is best expressed as a frame of mind.