[Lightman]

Someone to consider, Qatz.

I expect you to be singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic within the hour.

[QatzelOk]

Judah P. Benjamin

There were a lot of slimebags in America's proud history.

History is NOT just a series of well-positioned "facts" that the establishment dares people to try to knock down. Who cares about these constructed walls of selected facts about material conditions. They have brought us nothing but ignorance of human nature and motivations.

Here, in this thread, we are examining the "let-down" of the Obama pseudo-leftist, and comparing it to the "let-down" a reader of American history might feel if he scratches the surface of our historical narratives a bit too deeply.

It doesn't take much scratching in this case. I don't need to know Lincoln's dog's name, or how many states were free/slave. These facts are irrelevant for what we're discussing here, which is moral, rather than material, in nature.

[Beren]

Lincoln was a progressive figure of his time, and Obama is a progressive figure of his time as well. However, progression always had its limits.

Lincoln was a good man, even Marx liked him.

The International Workingmen's Association 1864

Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
January 28, 1865
__________________________________________________________________

Written: by Marx between November 22 & 29, 1864
First Published: The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 169, November 7, 1865;
Transcription/Markup: Zodiac/Brian Baggins;
Online Version: Marx & Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000.
__________________________________________________________________

Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world. [B]
___________________________________________________________________

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council:

Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;

George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary.

18 Greek Street, Soho.

[QatzelOk]

Thanks for providing an example of someone who as duped by the "free the slaves" narrative of Abe Lincoln's power base.

Did Karl really think that the sudden influx of dirt poor slaves (poor because not compensated) onto the labor market would "improve" conditions for workers?

He also believed in globalisation and material progress, and thought that a superrace of worker-heroes could be created from text.

[Beren]

Did Karl really think that the sudden influx of dirt poor slaves (poor because not compensated) onto the labor market would "improve" conditions for workers?

It seems he believed (or hoped) something else.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes.

[Lightman]

History is NOT just a series of well-positioned "facts" that the establishment dares people to try to knock down. Who cares about these constructed walls of selected facts about material conditions. They have brought us nothing but ignorance of human nature and motivations.

This is a perfect example of words put together to mean literally nothing.

[Smilin' Dave]

History is NOT just a series of well-positioned "facts" that the establishment dares people to try to knock down. Who cares about these constructed walls of selected facts about material conditions.

Qatz repeats his "History" modus operandi
1. Makes a post with a fact, which he then misrepresents in some fashion (includes asserting something as fact when it is not).
2. Someone points out why his point is wrong, either because it is factualy incorrect, logically false or a combination of the two.
3. Qatz declares facts irrelevant and part of a conspiracy to persecute him.
So how cares about facts? Apparently you do until they say you are wrong. Anyhow, I'll continue my M.O of pointing out that as always your posts are hypocritical beyond parody.

I might also point out that nobody has questioned the one actual fact you have produced in this thread Qatz, the quote by Lincoln. You've been asked to prove something else you asserted as fact (that this was all some bizzare conspiracy by industry to get wage slaves), but since it seems to be completely unsupported I think it unfair to call that a fact, and hence your rejection of facts actually has no bearing on the discussion.

Here, in this thread, we are examining the "let-down" of the Obama pseudo-leftist, and comparing it to the "let-down" a reader of American history might feel if he scratches the surface of our historical narratives a bit too deeply.

Qatz, supposed post-modernist, judges a historical figure, according to a modernist all encompassing narrative of progress towards some leftist utopia.

I don't think contemporaries thought Lincoln was a let down. Beren's quoted passage suggest otherwise. This possibility completely slipped your analysis. Despite your self proclaimed interest in human nature and motivations:

They have brought us nothing but ignorance of human nature and motivations.

These facts are irrelevant for what we're discussing here, which is moral, rather than material, in nature.

Qatz, post modernist, asserting there are moral absolutes from which all history can be judged.

Can you explain to me how your claims of wage slavery conspiracy are moral rather than material? Your whole claim was based on (shoddy) economics.

Passing moral judgement would be irrelevant if what you pass judgement on doesn't actually exist. Unless you want to devote a thread to how little green men from Mars practice stem cell research and other such fabrications.

[QatzelOk]

Qatz declares facts irrelevant and part of a conspiracy to persecute him.

Actually, my own persecution on this forum is not what I am referring to. I am not as involved in ad hom thinking as you suggest.

Facts are what Big Money uses to steer underlings (like all of us here on the forum) into buying certain things.

This makes our History an inaccurate piece of manipulation because it's so full of product placement and heroes.

Heroes are just ethnic product placement, and from this, racism is constructed - and this racism is useful for the elite when they want to attack a country and steal their resources.

The Abe Lincoln "hero" story is a classic case of fake history that is full of product placement ("Freedom! Wage slavery! War as a solution to social problems!) and racism (white hero saves blacks).

[Paradigm]

Facts are what Big Money uses to steer underlings (like all of us here on the forum) into buying certain things.

Really, Qatz? Is that a fact?

[Smilin' Dave]

Perhaps a sequence of events isn't sufficient to codify the Qatzian approach to argument. I think we need a flow chart, because of a propensity to 'reset' the discussion by trying to change the subject. Also a result for 'cryptic whinge in Gorkiy' may have some merit as it is becoming more frequent.

Actually, my own persecution on this forum is not what I am referring to. I am not as involved in ad hom thinking as you suggest.

I don't think I've ever really accused you of ad hom arguments. Strawmen and a range of other such nonsense yes, ad homs no.

Heroes are just ethnic product placement

- This presupposes all history is written on ethnic lines, which it isn't.
- Or that all history features heroes, which it sometimes doesn't. Who precisely would we call the hero in the text Zulu Rising?

nd this racism is useful for the elite when they want to attack a country and steal their resources.

Chronologically, appeals to racial superiority in Europe post date the 'attack and steal' phase of colonisation. So you're wrong about that too.

The Abe Lincoln "hero" story is a classic case of fake history that is full of product placement ("Freedom! Wage slavery! War as a solution to social problems!) and racism (white hero saves blacks).

This presupposes that nobody has ever written a history of Lincoln featuring the quote in the OP. Which is patently false. I'm not surprised you don't know this because you are clearly, once again, totally unfamiliar with the subject. I'm pretty sure you didn't come across said quote in original research on primary documentation (and if you did, welcome to real analysis and using facts) so you've obviously learnt about it by way of another historian at some stage.

[QatzelOk]

Smilin' Dave has turned an attempt at comparing Obama with Abe Lincoln into an Ad Hom rant.

Heroes are just ethnic product placement

This presupposes all history is written on ethnic lines...Or that all history features heroes...

No it doesn't. That historic "heroes" are product placement doesn't suggest that all history is written in one particular way or that every historic text names its heroes. This is empty ad hom.

It's in the use of History (the manner in which it is taught to people or represented in fiction) that heroes are created, and not in the compilation of each and every historical text.

The Abe Lincoln "hero" story is a classic case of fake history that is full of product placement ("Freedom! Wage slavery! War as a solution to social problems!) and racism (white hero saves blacks).

This presupposes that nobody has ever written a history of Lincoln featuring the quote in the OP.

No it doesn't. You are not reading critically at all here. You are just trying to apply postmodern literary analysis as a technique for winning an argument.

In reality, the only proper use of this technique is in criticizing the way language is used to manipulate. And manipulation in history occurs because texts are commissioned and paid for by Big Money.

I am not funded by Big Money, and I don't have a money-seeking agenda here on this forum. So your "critical analysis" of my "subtexts" is both inaccurate and inappropriate. Kitsch, even.

[Paradigm]

You are just trying to apply postmodern literary analysis as a technique for winning an argument.

That might just be the most hilarious bit of projection I've ever seen. Freud would be quite amused.

[Smilin' Dave]

Smilin' Dave has turned an attempt at comparing Obama with Abe Lincoln into an Ad Hom rant.

Wait... are you sure you know what ad hom actually means? Because you see I've engaged with your argument and as always passed commentary on your style of 'discussion', but I haven't actually said "this is wrong because Qatz said it was true". Is your latest fixation on ad hom's the result of a misunderstanding?

No it doesn't. That historic "heroes" are product placement doesn't suggest that all history is written in one particular way or that every historic text names its heroes.

You just stated all history is about heroes, ethnicity and product placement... now you want to claim history is not all written in a particular way.

I reiterate: who is the hero, unwritten if you prefer, in the book Zulu Rising. It's probably available at a book store (exerts might even be on Google Books) if you want to go grab it, I'm happy to wait for you to finish it so you can give an answer.

This is empty ad hom.

In a passage in which you and your style are not mentioned at all? How exactly is it ad hom?

Suddenly my point about posters believing they have been personally attacked when their cherished ideals are disputed in your ad hom discussion seems particularly accurate.

It's in the use of History (the manner in which it is taught to people or represented in fiction) that heroes are created, and not in the compilation of each and every historical text.

Lets compare this to your earlier statement in another thread of this same sub-forum:

They [writers of history] put moral terms (my country, my god, my self interest) in every line.

Apparently the 'compilers' are in on the conspiracy, until you are asked to provide an example of it. Then suddenly we have to pretend your bold statements have nuance which does not appear in the writing.

No it doesn't.

...Yeah it does. You see you've crafted this conspiracy where big money manipulates all history in order to manipulate us, the public. However your vast conspiracy of totalitarian goals fails to explain examples where history is not being taught in the way you claim. In this case, it seems few actual historians teach that Lincoln was some kind of anti-racist crusader as you claimed.

You are just trying to apply postmodern literary analysis as a technique for winning an argument.

I'm insulted you think my posts are an incoherent jumble of trendy buzz words which ultimately prove and mean nothing. Unlike yourself I would never stoop to that level <- now that's more like ad hom.

And manipulation in history occurs because texts are commissioned and paid for by Big Money.

I think you'll find most texts are submitted by their authors to publishers, not commissioned by the publisher. Do show me evidence if you think this is wrong.

I am not funded by Big Money, and I don't have a money-seeking agenda here on this forum. So your "critical analysis" of my "subtexts" is both inaccurate and inappropriate. Kitsch, even.

Pre-supposing one can only be critical of big money, which is false. If we swap 'money' for 'emotional need to grandstand on a forum', your motivations and techniques are really no different to that of big money. "Big Qatz" has actually demonstrated a far more consistent M.O in fact than the supposed "big money" conspiracy ever did.

How do you earn a living anyway Qatz?

[QatzelOk]

How do you earn a living anyway Qatz?

I'm a hedge fund manager with a major French oil multinational.

**please move this thread to Gorkiy**

[QatzelOk]

Pre-supposing one can only be critical of big money, which is false. If we swap 'money' for 'emotional need to grandstand on a forum', your motivations and techniques are really no different to that of big money. "Big Qatz" has actually demonstrated a far more consistent M.O in fact than the supposed "big money" conspiracy ever did.

Emotional grandstanding on a forum doesn't cause global climate change, colonialism, or pollution in the Gulf of Mexico. It doesn't lead to world wars that kill millions of innocent people.

Big money does.

It's a shame that you apply moral equivalency to things with very different consequences. I guess this is because the West has really lost its way, much like it had by the time that proud racist Lincoln got to be president of a racist nation. Backed by Big Money, just like Obama. "With all my wars, you guys can be rich. All we need now is a cause. Slavery? Feminism? Equality? I don't really care what cause we use, as long as it makes us all rich."

[Dave]

Although other users have done a typically good job is dismantling Qatz's silly claims, I would like to add that in addition to supporting white supremacy Abraham Lincoln was a lifelong opponent of deporting all negros to Africa in a scheme which was referred to as "colonization". The idea that the Civil War was fought to create a new reservoir of labor for industrialists does not square well with the fact that the architect of the Civil War intended to deport that labor source to another continent--in an era long before offshoring.

Additionally, while President Lincoln's untimely death tragically prevented the possibility of deporting the blacks to Africa, large-scale migration of black to northern cities did not begin until the First World War. Even if Qatz's conspiracy theory were true, curiously there was no movement to exploit blacks after the war by anyone other than Southerners themselves (e.g. share-cropping, chain gangs) and some carpetbaggers.

[QatzelOk]

Dave, thanks for reminding us all (in your subtext) that the deaths of so many well paid white soldiers lead to shortages of labor that could now be filled with much less expensive (and less demanding) ejected slave labor.

This is what Lincoln should be remembered for: sending slaves out onto the free market to be abused.

This is similar to all those suddenly-landless families in Ireland and Scotland (enclosures, etc.): cheap, desperate labor from a race you can easily abuse. Meanwhile, as labor is being shored up, the natives are being eradicated elsewhere to make way for railroads.

Stay tuned for more of The American Race.

[Smilin' Dave]

Emotional grandstanding on a forum doesn't cause global climate change, colonialism, or pollution...

Big qatz does lead to a lot of hot air, thread invasions & visual pollution. Big qatz is real, big money does not exist as a unitary block. Big qatz does nothing effectual about big money.

Dave, thanks for reminding us all (in your subtext) that the deaths of so many well paid white soldiers lead to shortages of labor that could now be filled with much less expensive (and less demanding) ejected slave labor.

Soldiers were not well paid...

This is what Lincoln should be remembered for: sending slaves out onto the free market to be abused.

This is specifically contradicted by Dave's point. You have yet to provide evidence, instead you tried to bury this latest farse in Gorkiy.

[QatzelOk]

Soldiers were not well paid...

I don't think you understood my sentence.

I said that dead white soldiers left room for black workers who would be paid much less (and treated much worse) than the dead whites did in the civilian economy before and after the war.

And white soldiers were paid more (and treated better) than black soldiers on both sides.

I don't need to google this to know it's true.

Lincoln did nothing for blacks, and everything for his sponsors - just like Obama.

[Smilin' Dave]

I don't think you understood my sentence.

No, your sentence was poorly constructed. Let's look at it again:

Dave, thanks for reminding us all (in your subtext) that the deaths of so many well paid white soldiers lead to shortages of labor that could now be filled with much less expensive (and less demanding) ejected slave labor.

- You quite clearly refer to well paid soldiers. You make no reference to what they might be earning in peace time.
- You make reference to the lower pay of 'wage slaves', but don't make it clear that you are judging both in relative terms. In fact you make a point of stating they are 'much less expensive', suggesting the bar is set by the early statement about white labour.

For someone claiming to find 'sub text' in other people's posts (because you're totally not just making shit up), you seem to play pretty loose with words.

Lincoln did nothing for blacks, and everything for his sponsors - just like Obama.

You have submitted proof for neither president. Your point about Lincoln seems to be disproven by pretty much everything we know about him. You keep throwing Obama into the mix because you sometimes mistake references to current affairs for wit.

See if you can prove these two:
- Demonstrate there were more black labourers in the industrial sector immediately after 1865
- That wages dropped immediately post 1865 (after all if the wage slaves make less, everyones wages would have to drop to be competitive)

Oh, and have this as another stroke against your 'theory'
Link

Across the New World, the abolition of slavery was followed by a battery of laws restricting the labor market mobility of the newly emancipated. This paper models and estimates the impact of labor mobility restricting laws on African-Americans in the post-bellum U.S. South. Laws restricting job-to-job transitions increased the fraction of African-Americans relative to whites living in the rural sector and working in agriculture across the South. Increases in the fines charged employers for recruiting employed workers increased the duration of black labor contracts in a sample of Arkansas agricultural workers. Black agricultural workers who lived longer under labor control laws had a lower return to experience. These findings are consistent with a two-sector model of on-the-job search with mobility costs.

Restrictions on labour mobility would make no sense given the majority of industry was in the north. And apparently the proportion working in the agriculutural sector increased after the war, rather than declined.