Your View From Today on the Civil War

[Thorgrimm]

I am not trying to threadjack i just have one thing to say, does this forum allow nazis to post here, absloutely not. Then why allow communists to post, as more people around the world have died under communist rule than the nazis ever killed. Apply equal standards or you are just censoring what you do not like. And anybody spouting the communist dogma are just as bad as the ss ever were. The greatest evil ever unleashed on this planet was COMMUNISM 10s of Millions have died under their despicable rule and you allow them to spew their B******t on here without a second thought, sounds like bovine excrement to me. So XIII warn away as i do not care about your warnings.Moderator Action: Then be restricted from posting until you do care, and 3 days minimum for threadjacking. Lefty
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

@ Thorgrimm

Why don't you present a clear and well presented case against why the Civil war was not a imperialist capitalist one motivated by greed.

You seem to have totally misunderstood what Marxism is. It is much more than communism. It is a theory which seeks to explain the social and economic forces that shape history. I have no delusions that it will explain everything, However I do believe that it is useful as a means to further understanding.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
I am not trying to threadjack i just have one thing to say, does this forum allow nazis to post here, absloutely not. Then why allow communists to post, as more people around the world have died under communist rule than the nazis ever killed. Apply equal standards or you are just censoring what you do not like. And anybody spouting the communist dogma are just as bad as the ss ever were. The greatest evil ever unleashed on this planet was COMMUNISM 10s of Millions have died under their despicable rule and you allow them to spew their B******t on here without a second thought, sounds like bovine excrement to me. So XIII warn away as i do not care about your warnings.

I don't like marxism any more than you do, but in fairness to Dr., THAT's crap.

The distinction is quite obvious: however much some of us might like to pretend otherwise,

1) it is possible to be a marxist without actively seeking to kill anybody
2) discussion of Marxism as a theory is quite harmless, and usually marxists are the first to denounce even their own bigotry if it appears
3) there are numerous threads of marxist belief that are, in fact, quite opposed to the excesses of Stalinism. We can argue that a real communist government would by its nature produce stalinism, but that doesn't mean Dr. WANTS stalinism, does it? And he can quite fairly argue that capitalism leads to war: should I be offended, and banned? Capitalism HAS led to wars, that doesn't mean I want it to or beleive it's inevitable.

On the other hand, nazis are pretty much bigots, with an ideology formed on the basis of bigotry. I've never met a nazi who wasn't doing it for the simple reason that it was a way to rationalize anti-semetism. Quite a difference.

Dr. 's posts may be frustrating to you, but they in no way 'threaten' you, which is why the standard you're imposing on him is absurd and, to me, offensive. If you want to say "your ideals lead to tyranny and disaster," be sure to make the distinction between "lead to" and "aspire to."

Your complaints might apply to some of the posts of Vietcong, but I sort of look at him as satire of the sort that Simon provides for the right.

R.III

 

[scoutsout]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
Why don't you present a clear and well presented case against why the Civil war was not a imperialist capitalist one motivated by greed.

A weakness in marxist thinking, that "capitalist-imperialist" is laced throughout so much of it's literature (propaganda).

Imperialism is something that existed long before capitalism, and can exist quite well apart from it. The Soviet Union was nothing more than the communist version of the Russian Empire. The British Empire was built on a mercantile (not capitalist) economy. Imperialism is imperialism, and can come with feudal, mercantile, communist, or capitalist economic strings attached.

Calling the US Civil War a "capitalist imperialist" war is like calling the Ionian Revolt a proletariat uprising. It works, but it's a force fit because you're looking at history on your own, contemporary terms (out of its context and into your own).

That's why so much revisionist history is garbage. By all means, examine new facts and evidence as they come to light - but there is a mighty fine line between "interpretation" and "spin".

 

[Thorgrimm]

Stalinist, communist hairsplitting is not the point they claim the communist tag so the tag fits and the COMMUNISTS are just as bad as the nazis. After all he has already defended in another thread that you debated in, "slavery" in the name of the common good stating freedom is an outdated concept. So you defending a self proclaimed communist speaks well of you but does not excuse the communists of their atrocities. Do you call Mao Tse-Tung stalinist, do you call Pol Pot stalinist,shall i go on with the examples. Apply the standard equaly the nazis and the communists are equal bastards on the world stage.

 

[Speedo]

Still it was Virginia that held the whip hand. If Virginia had been less adamant about their assertion of rights, over any coalition of other states objections, then the other southern states would have fallen in line behind them. Virginia had the the oldest, most respected families, the tradition of political leadership, and very importantly, the cream of the military leadership, exemplified, but not limited to, Robert E Lee. Virginia felt that place of primacy slipping away, and was fighting in part in an effort to save it.

The only state Virginia probably would have affected would have been NC, possibly Tennessee. NC didn't have any great outcry for secession, but being that we were kinda surrounded we ended up going with the flow.

Robert E. Lee, while now considered (one of) the greatest General(s) in US history, wasn't that big at the time. There was quite a bit of complaining when he was eventually given command of the army of northern Virginia, as there were many other candidates that appeared to be better qualified.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by scoutsout
A weakness in marxist thinking, that "capitalist-imperialist" is laced throughout so much of it's literature (propaganda).

An imperialist war is characterized by annexation, predation and plunder. The distribution of railroads proves the reach of capitalism. The expansion of the nation’s railroad network is what makes mass production in factories economically feasible. From this map I think it is evident that the concentration of railroads was far higher in the North than it was in the South.

That does not in itself prove that there was a capitalist motive behind the war, and that the war is imperialist. However it does fit nicely into Leninist and Marxist theory. It does suggets that capital was beginning to be more concentrated in the North and that the capitalists needed new markets and labourers to further fuel the economy.

 

[scoutsout]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
The distribution of railroads proves the reach of capitalism.

Okay, following that logic, during WWII, the Soviet Union established industrial bases east of the Ural Mountains (placing them out of Hitler's reach). Shipment of tanks and other war material was accompished by rail.

So would it therefore follow that Capitalism reached across the Urals at the height of WWII?

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by scoutsout

Okay, following that logic, during WWII, the Soviet Union established industrial bases east of the Ural Mountains (placing them out of Hitler's reach). Shipment of tanks and other war material was accompished by rail.

So would it therefore follow that Capitalism reached across the Urals at the height of WWII?

Yes, but that proves that the Soviet Economy was not centralized as the German one for instance. The Soviet Union had made a giant stride from an agricutural economy to an industialized in a few decades. Had the Soviet Union been truly capitalist, we might have seen a concentration of industry in the Western part of USSR solely. That might have created the basis for a second Russian civil war had the centre continued to be further industrialized and monopolized and the periphery had stayed agrarian. Of course that is pure speculation.

I think what the map did show, and also note the concentration of industry and resorces in the North, is that there was a concentration of capital in the North. Lenin states that wars are meant to export capital, so that the capitalists can find new markets

The economist John A. Hobson states that imperialism is the expansion of certain economic forms into other areas of the world.
Note how differnt the South and the North was in economic, social and cultural terms.

Three conditions must be in place before a capitalist imperialist war takes place. 1)underconsumption by workers. 2)overproduction of goods. 3)oversavings by the upper classes.

The south did not, since it was somewhat slavebased have the same opportunity as the north to underpay its workers. The slaves were given housing and food by the owner. I don't know if the South had an overproduction in agriculture. And I don't know if there were oversavings among the upperclasses of the South.

 

[onejayhawk]

Not to be a foreign party to this discussion, but in point of fact the Soviet economywas much more centralized than the German version. Everything revolved around Moscow and Leningrad. Had Moscow actually fallen, the War would have effectively been over.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

If I follow your economist correctly, then it is necessary to have a large excess of goods before a war starts. This is caused by production ogoods, which are not being consumed locally, ie by the producing workers. Oversaving is oxymoronic, but in the context I take it to mean that The upper classes are accumulating wealth.

While you may claim that the production of cotton for exporrt satisfies the first two conditions, there is no possible argument taht the third applies. The "upper classes" of the preconfederate south were being pinched financially. Far from accumulating wealth, it was eroding. If you want to apply the paradigm to the North, you have problems with the first two points. I also fail to see how trade can be fit in.

Regardless, while it is always a good idea to follow the money, in terms of nations, it is rarely sufficient. In the specific case of the American Civil War, loss of face plays a large part also.

J

 

[scoutsout]

Okay, my previous post was intended as a joke. The fact that it was apparently taken seriously is frankly a little disturbing to me...

If you think capitalisim is about the concentration of industry in a particular geographic area, you need to study some more economics (unless you're at Brown or somepace with a Marxist economics department...)

The expansion of an economy by exporting finished goods to distant markets, (and in turn taking the raw materials from those distant lands) is mercantilism, which is a pre-cursor to capitalism, but with markets that are less than open.

Lenin's notion of "exporting capital" is wide of the mark. Marxism is mostly normative theory about what should be the proper relationship between labor and capital...and generally demonstrates a poor understanding of capital. It's propaganda for the masses, to justify the concentration of power in a communist party. Redistribution of wealth was the justification given to the masses, but they were left with a government that was not less authoritarian (and arguably no more efficient) than what they had under the Czars.

I haven't read Hobson's view of imperialism, but unless he was quoted out of context, it's an awfully narrow view.

Three conditions must be in place before a capitalist imperialist war takes place. 1)underconsumption by workers. 2)overproduction of goods. 3)oversavings by the upper classes.

As with most propaganda, the world-view expressed in the above quote is way over-simplified. This is not sound economic theory, this is communist party doctrine. Nothing more.

Again, your application of Marx and Lenin to the American Civil War is an out-of-context, force-fit.

If you want to continue asserting that it was a capitalist-imperialist war on the part of the North, then please explain to me why the South fired the first shots? The north already HAD access to southern markets and goods. And it wasn't about access to cheap southern slave labor either. It would have been much easier for them to have simply instituted slavery (or bought slaves and kept them indebted for life for their "freedom") than to fight a war.

And please don't asser that it was the south that was the imperialist. They already HAD markets (Europe), and after all, they fought to separate themselves from the north, not to gain access to it.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

onejayhawk

I think you misunderstood. I was merely trying to exclude the notion that it was not the South which was imperialist.

Interesting point about the Southern Aristocracy being squeezed economically. Also the South as scoustout says already had markets in Europe.

scoustout

The North was not mercantilist since it did not export its goods to Europe. It was perhaps an autarkic economic and selfsufficient unit. However with increasing industrialization the North needed an export market. Were the South willing to be that export market? Especially when the upperclasses were in economic hurt, and the slaves had no means of buying goods for themsleves. Not likely. Hence the North needed to 'export' a whole new socioeconomic system to the South. That could only be done through war.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
Stalinist, communist hairsplitting is not the point they claim the communist tag so the tag fits and the COMMUNISTS are just as bad as the nazis. After all he has already defended in another thread that you debated in, "slavery" in the name of the common good stating freedom is an outdated concept. So you defending a self proclaimed communist speaks well of you but does not excuse the communists of their atrocities. Do you call Mao Tse-Tung stalinist, do you call Pol Pot stalinist,shall i go on with the examples. Apply the standard equaly the nazis and the communists are equal bastards on the world stage.

I guess the key to all of this is to realize that I'm not defending him but rather defending the idea that we should hear his ****e out and trounce it rather than trounce it by, say, banning.

Tried to avoid sounding like Voltaire there, did it work?

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Richard III

I guess the key to all of this is to realize that I'm not defending him but rather defending the idea that we should hear his ****e out and trounce it rather than trounce it by, say, banning.

Tried to avoid sounding like Voltaire there, did it work?

Hey. Thanks for your unfaltering support for the communist cause.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Moderator Action: Four other posters warned for threadjacking posts with no american civil war to be had in them
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please reamin on topic.

 

[Serutan]

Originally posted by Richard III


And while I don't want to get into the debate here, I recently had the pleasure of reading South Carolina's "justification for secession" as read to its legislature. Was intrigued by just how prominent slavery was in that explanation, and how absent "industrialization" or "the tariff" was.

Nice touch with the "whip hand."

First, the "whip hand" was onejayhawks term; give credit
where it is due

Second: You're going to get an answer anyway

We're dealing with politics here. Even though the economic
issues (of which slavery was an intergral part, of course) were large
factors in secession (Southerners in Congress fought anything to do with tarrifs tooth and nail) , economic arguments just won't get the public's juices flowing, unless there's a depression on (and there
wasn't in 1860). But an emotionally charged issue like slavery (
"property rights" when Southerners were feeling euphamistic; and
of course the moral side of the issue, not the boring economic side) makes for a great political document.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
Interesting point about the Southern Aristocracy being squeezed economically. Also the South as scoustout says already had markets in Europe.

:bows politely:

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
The North was not mercantilist since it did not export its goods to Europe. It was perhaps an autarkic economic and selfsufficient unit. However with increasing industrialization the North needed an export market. Were the South willing to be that export market? Especially when the upperclasses were in economic hurt, and the slaves had no means of buying goods for themsleves. Not likely. Hence the North needed to 'export' a whole new socioeconomic system to the South. That could only be done through war.

The South was the prime source of cotton for the European mills, and there was no similar dependency on Northern products. This does not mean that trade was not taking place. The North had extensive trade with Europe. The growing industry had outlets literally worldwide, but specifically with Europe. The trade was much more oriented to goods, rather than materials such as cotton.

In comparison, the Southern plantation was much more self reliant. Slave would grow their own food, construct their own dwellings and manufacture their own clothes. The cash crops were exported, and very little was imported, except luxury items. The economic sqeeze came from market effects penalizing overproduction of a single product, by driving the prices down.

J

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Just some curious facts.

The antebellum textile industry in New York meant that there was a huge demand of oil to lubricate the machines. Because of the increase in the price in 1858 the entrepreneur Edwin L. Drake initiated the first oil drilling operation in Pennsylvania, employing revolutionay new technology. However form 1859 to 1861 the price of oil fell from $ 20 to $ 0. 52 as the market was satiated, and Drake was ruined in oilstock speculation following the boom.

Postbellum, in 1866 the first oildrilling operation is begun in Texas.

I don't believe the war was about oil.

 

[Richard III]

"Today, archeologists dug deep into the remains of the marxist dialectical core to find with buried in beneath the rhetoric."




(whoops, OT!)