Why do some reject the French Revolution?

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,979
Spain
You can find capitalism, free-trade and entrepeneurship also in Denmark and Sweden, as well as in the United States or any other Western capitalist country, social mobility in Scandinavian nations is even better than in the United States.



The United States were founded on liberal principles but practically didn't already follow them in 1776 nor in 1787, of course it takes a lot of time to make a real revolution. On what point you say slaveholders would have given freedom since they themselves started a war to preserve slavery?

You can't be pro-freedom and defend the right to own slaves against government, it's against any kind of liberal principle promoted by Locke and other fathers of classical liberalism (Declaration of Indipendence included); it would be like if a Bolschevick fought againt collectivization after fighting the Civil war against the White army.

Dear Lm.. I am not defendind the right to own slaves.. I am defendend the right of ownership.... Slaves didn´t become slaves when Lincoln arrived... Slaves existed from early Neolitic communities....for sure in Egypt and Summer....Also in Adam Smith´s UK were slaves....So.... If a man wanted to make slaves in 1861 in USA. that was against laws.. but if a man had slaves from always.... maybe from 1800 or from 1779 or from 1602... or from 1510.... he had a right... a ownership right... what I say it is nobody have the power to steal his ownership. Only the owner had the right to give up his rights... I think...nobody can give up what he doesn't have... and lincoln didn´t have the right of ownership!!! If you don´t ike the word slaves.. Ok... forget the word and imagine we are talking about Ferrari or horses or custard apple! If Lincol didn´t have the rights about Curstard Apples... Lincold didn´t have the right to ban the other people´s rights on custard Apples!!!!
From my point of view.. Lincoln was a socialist...not a Marxist... but yes a guy could be manipulated by Marx (more intelligent than "abe").. I think Marx supported North because he intuited the illegal decision to interfere with legitimate property rights .. were an open door for the future entry of Marxist socialism.

Anarchist or if you prefer BAKUNIN supported CSA or Southern Confederation because Russian intellectual intuited CSA defended individual rights opposited the State (or maybe because his natural opposition to Marx!).. in any Case... BAKUNIN wrote about the South Cause was... the Cause of the Freedom!!! the cause of individualism oppossite the Lobbies... and the States... Man´s cause opposite System´s cause... in a word... South symbolizes the freedom of human beings against the oppression of the North (Bakunin)... in Spanish. (Reasons because anarchism supported Confederate States of America)

That´s the reason because from 19th Century.. Confederate Flag (the famous War Flag) also is worn by Anarchist groups...

1578258731260.jpeg

This flag is symbol of Freedom for Anarchist groups from 19th Century. However, USA flag is seen as an oppresive flag (as Soviet one).

So, dear Lm... as you can see... some people (as Bakunin, anarchist, some European countries etc) saw in the South.. the defence of the individual rights opposite Northern Lobbies in Public administration...in the end.. nobody in Alabama or in Georgia pretended to change the ways of life of the ugly spinsters in Philadelphia or Boston and New York industrialist men... Don´t you think so?
 
Oct 2013
1,343
Monza, Italy
Dear Lm.. I am not defendind the right to own slaves.. I am defendend the right of ownership.... Slaves didn´t become slaves when Lincoln arrived... Slaves existed from early Neolitic communities....for sure in Egypt and Summer....Also in Adam Smith´s UK were slaves....So.... If a man wanted to make slaves in 1861 in USA. that was against laws.. but if a man had slaves from always.... maybe from 1800 or from 1779 or from 1602... or from 1510.... he had a right... a ownership right... what I say it is nobody have the power to steal his ownership. Only the owner had the right to give up his rights... I think...nobody can give up what he doesn't have... and lincoln didn´t have the right of ownership!!! If you don´t ike the word slaves.. Ok... forget the word and imagine we are talking about Ferrari or horses or custard apple! If Lincol didn´t have the rights about Curstard Apples... Lincold didn´t have the right to ban the other people´s rights on custard Apples!!!!
From my point of view.. Lincoln was a socialist...not a Marxist... but yes a guy could be manipulated by Marx (more intelligent than "abe").. I think Marx supported North because he intuited the illegal decision to interfere with legitimate property rights .. were an open door for the future entry of Marxist socialism.

Anarchist or if you prefer BAKUNIN supported CSA or Southern Confederation because Russian intellectual intuited CSA defended individual rights opposited the State (or maybe because his natural opposition to Marx!).. in any Case... BAKUNIN wrote about the South Cause was... the Cause of the Freedom!!! the cause of individualism oppossite the Lobbies... and the States... Man´s cause opposite System´s cause... in a word... South symbolizes the freedom of human beings against the oppression of the North (Bakunin)... in Spanish. (Reasons because anarchism supported Confederate States of America)

That´s the reason because from 19th Century.. Confederate Flag (the famous War Flag) also is worn by Anarchist groups...

View attachment 25978

This flag is symbol of Freedom for Anarchist groups from 19th Century. However, USA flag is seen as an oppresive flag (as Soviet one).

So, dear Lm... as you can see... some people (as Bakunin, anarchist, some European countries etc) saw in the South.. the defence of the individual rights opposite Northern Lobbies in Public administration...in the end.. nobody in Alabama or in Georgia pretended to change the ways of life of the ugly spinsters in Philadelphia or Boston and New York industrialist men... Don´t you think so?
i already understood your point about property rights, but let me say: Bakunin was in no way a supporter of the South during civil war. Read here: https://libcom.org/files/BAKUNIN AND THE UNITED STATES.pdf (pages 325-326, he said "My sympathies are all with the North"). By the way it would be perfect to quote some works about who started the war and why - not necessarily Lincoln I think. You also consider that working class conditions in the North were better than those in the rest of the Western world (I quote Maldwyn Jones "The Limits of Liberty" as a serious source about working class conditions in the North during 1800s) even though many people in Alabama and Georgia, as you said, actually pretended to represent the ideal idyllic rural heaven opposed to industrialization (see W. Schivelbush "The Culture of Defeat"). Marx and Lincoln were both smart men who supported the end of slavery for different reasons (see the letters Marx sent to Abe), Marx for his prospect of property-labour relationships: Marx's letter to Abraham Lincoln.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,983
Dear Lm.. I am not defendind the right to own slaves.. I am defendend the right of ownership.... Slaves didn´t become slaves when Lincoln arrived... Slaves existed from early Neolitic communities....for sure in Egypt and Summer....Also in Adam Smith´s UK were slaves....So.... If a man wanted to make slaves in 1861 in USA. that was against laws.. but if a man had slaves from always.... maybe from 1800 or from 1779 or from 1602... or from 1510.... he had a right... a ownership right... what I say it is nobody have the power to steal his ownership. Only the owner had the right to give up his rights... I think...nobody can give up what he doesn't have... and lincoln didn´t have the right of ownership!!! If you don´t ike the word slaves.. Ok... forget the word and imagine we are talking about Ferrari or horses or custard apple! If Lincol didn´t have the rights about Curstard Apples... Lincold didn´t have the right to ban the other people´s rights on custard Apples!!!!
From my point of view.. Lincoln was a socialist...not a Marxist... but yes a guy could be manipulated by Marx (more intelligent than "abe").. I think Marx supported North because he intuited the illegal decision to interfere with legitimate property rights .. were an open door for the future entry of Marxist socialism.

Anarchist or if you prefer BAKUNIN supported CSA or Southern Confederation because Russian intellectual intuited CSA defended individual rights opposited the State (or maybe because his natural opposition to Marx!).. in any Case... BAKUNIN wrote about the South Cause was... the Cause of the Freedom!!! the cause of individualism oppossite the Lobbies... and the States... Man´s cause opposite System´s cause... in a word... South symbolizes the freedom of human beings against the oppression of the North (Bakunin)... in Spanish. (Reasons because anarchism supported Confederate States of America)

That´s the reason because from 19th Century.. Confederate Flag (the famous War Flag) also is worn by Anarchist groups...

View attachment 25978

This flag is symbol of Freedom for Anarchist groups from 19th Century. However, USA flag is seen as an oppresive flag (as Soviet one).

So, dear Lm... as you can see... some people (as Bakunin, anarchist, some European countries etc) saw in the South.. the defence of the individual rights opposite Northern Lobbies in Public administration...in the end.. nobody in Alabama or in Georgia pretended to change the ways of life of the ugly spinsters in Philadelphia or Boston and New York industrialist men... Don´t you think so?
What is you source for teh claim Bakunin sup[pport the south.

This certinaly has him supporting the North and favoring the abilition of slavery.




"Like Kennard and his other hosts, Bakunin was firmly opposed to Negro
slavery, indeed to slavery in all its manifestations. Throughout his sojourn
in America, he moved in abolitionist circles, defended the anti-slavery
movement and, unlike Proudhon, supported the Union in the struggle
between the states. The Civil War "interests me in the highest degree", he
wrote to Herzen and Ogarev from San Francisco. "My sympathies are all
with the North". So strong were his feelings on the slavery issue that had
circumstances permitted, according to Kennard, "he would have cast his
future fortune with Americans and heartily joined in the events of the War."

In later years he condemned the Northern apologists of slavery,
along with "the ferocious oligarchy" of Southern planters, as being
"demagogues without faith or conscience, capable of sacrificing everything
to their greed, to their malignant ambition". Such men, he said, had
"greatly contributed to the corruption of political morality in North

Not that the South was totally devoid of merit. No less than Proudhon,
Bakunin distrusted the growing centralization of Union power and
cherished the waning agrarian virtues of the Confederacy, whose political
structure he considered in some ways freer and more democratic than that
of the North. In reaching this conclusion , we learn from Kennard
Bakunin was probably influenced by Senator Gwin, "whose acquaintance
he had made on his voyage from San Francisco via Panama, and who
has sometimes been mentioned in the newspapers as 'Duke Gwin'".
Southern federalism, however, Bakunin was quick to point out, had been
tarnished by the "black spot" of slavery, with the result that the Con- federate
states had "drawn upon themselves the condemnation of all friends of freedom
and humanity". Moreover, with "the iniquitous and dishonorable war which they
fomented against the republican states of the North, they nearly overthrew and
destroyed the finest political organization that ever existed in history "

page 7


 
  • Like
Reactions: Lm1985

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,979
Spain
What is you source for teh claim Bakunin sup[pport the south.

This certinaly has him supporting the North and favoring the abilition of slavery.




"Like Kennard and his other hosts, Bakunin was firmly opposed to Negro
slavery, indeed to slavery in all its manifestations. Throughout his sojourn
in America, he moved in abolitionist circles, defended the anti-slavery
movement and, unlike Proudhon, supported the Union in the struggle
between the states. The Civil War "interests me in the highest degree", he
wrote to Herzen and Ogarev from San Francisco. "My sympathies are all
with the North". So strong were his feelings on the slavery issue that had
circumstances permitted, according to Kennard, "he would have cast his
future fortune with Americans and heartily joined in the events of the War."

In later years he condemned the Northern apologists of slavery,
along with "the ferocious oligarchy" of Southern planters, as being
"demagogues without faith or conscience, capable of sacrificing everything
to their greed, to their malignant ambition". Such men, he said, had
"greatly contributed to the corruption of political morality in North

Not that the South was totally devoid of merit. No less than Proudhon,
Bakunin distrusted the growing centralization of Union power and
cherished the waning agrarian virtues of the Confederacy, whose political
structure he considered in some ways freer and more democratic than that
of the North. In reaching this conclusion , we learn from Kennard
Bakunin was probably influenced by Senator Gwin, "whose acquaintance
he had made on his voyage from San Francisco via Panama, and who
has sometimes been mentioned in the newspapers as 'Duke Gwin'".
Southern federalism, however, Bakunin was quick to point out, had been
tarnished by the "black spot" of slavery, with the result that the Con- federate
states had "drawn upon themselves the condemnation of all friends of freedom
and humanity". Moreover, with "the iniquitous and dishonorable war which they
fomented against the republican states of the North, they nearly overthrew and
destroyed the finest political organization that ever existed in history "

page 7



I wrote the link.. but if you like another... Anarchy (Bakunin). (In Spanish). Mijail Aleksandrovich Bakunin, Sam Dolgoff, Marcelo Covián. Tusquest Editores. 1976. ISBN 84-7223-709-5. In this Book, Bakunin expresses its adhesion to the Confederate States and the Southern army.
As Mijail Bakunin never spoke nor Spanish nor English but German and Russian (and I assume that some French).. nor your references nor the mine ones are orignal sources but translations.

By the same reason, Spain, Britain and France were mostly Pro-South and Prussia, Austria and Russia mostly Pro-Union.

Bakunin was Pro-South because South defended their ways of life, their freedom against the Power and a very interesting economic system... (save Slavery).... Bakunin wrote in that book his sympathies pro-Confederate.

Other PRO-SOUTH: Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) the "Father" of the Anarcho-liberalism.... he wrote South was defending the freedom against the power (letter to Sumners, 1864. In this letter Spooner considered the Yankees more guilty of war than slavesholders.

So.. according with the book Anarchy wrote by M. Bakunin.. he was PRO-South.... Well... Karl Marx defended Charlist... Absolutist in Spanish Civil War (1872 - 1876)....So... dear Puigsville.... not so easy.. to say "leftist" were with Lincoln.... no dear... there were anarchist sympathizers with Jeff Davis and Communist ones with Abe Lincoln...there were ultra liberals supported South... and Socialist supported North....

by the way Proudhon supported South.... according with the book Anarchist.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,979
Spain
i already understood your point about property rights, but let me say: Bakunin was in no way a supporter of the South during civil war. Read here: https://libcom.org/files/BAKUNIN AND THE UNITED STATES.pdf (pages 325-326, he said "My sympathies are all with the North"). By the way it would be perfect to quote some works about who started the war and why - not necessarily Lincoln I think. You also consider that working class conditions in the North were better than those in the rest of the Western world (I quote Maldwyn Jones "The Limits of Liberty" as a serious source about working class conditions in the North during 1800s) even though many people in Alabama and Georgia, as you said, actually pretended to represent the ideal idyllic rural heaven opposed to industrialization (see W. Schivelbush "The Culture of Defeat"). Marx and Lincoln were both smart men who supported the end of slavery for different reasons (see the letters Marx sent to Abe), Marx for his prospect of property-labour relationships: Marx's letter to Abraham Lincoln.
Dear Lm1985... I wrote the link in Spanish.... As Bakunin was not able to speak English (nor Spanish)... your source (and the mine one) are not direct.. but (in the best of case) translations... We need to read the letter in original version.. I guess Russian or German language.

Who begun the war and why... stilll they are inconclusive or questions withouth answers....I guess in a War nobody is innocent (not even Poland in 1939.. they were very happy when they invaded CZ together "honest" Hitler)...and nobody is guilty.... I understand Yankee Point of view.. and I understand Confederate Point of view...Lincoln was not the "little angel" or cherub....portrayed by his panegyrists, a kind of being of light.. a Jesucristh born in USA... and likely nor the Satan, the Beast, the 666, the Anti-Christ, the Leviathan portrayed by his enemies.... he.. as Lenin, Stalin, Polt, Polt, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini.... simply... broke the laws to achieve a goal that he thought it was very important.
 
Oct 2013
1,343
Monza, Italy
Dear Lm1985... I wrote the link in Spanish.... As Bakunin was not able to speak English (nor Spanish)... your source (and the mine one) are not direct.. but (in the best of case) translations... We need to read the letter in original version.. I guess Russian or German language.
But I don't think a translation can falsify so much words like "I stand for sure with the North" or something like this; the source for those words is Russian (Pis'ma), and the author is really serious (Paul Avrich); the source is quite reliabe I think since it realistically portrays also the sympathy that Bakunin had for the South (the Southern federalism, its agrarian nature, and so on....), not a black/white vision; many deep intellectuals have expressed sympathy for the Southern agrarian reality - except for the slavery thing of course, which is at the core of any kind of discussion about the Civil war. Your link reports information about Lysander Spooner, I may add even Ron Paul - a presidential candidate in 2008 - "recently" said he would not have supported the North during the Civil War..so did Thomas Carlyle..so what does this mean? This is a typical extreme right wing approach (not fascist, but extremely libertarian in most of cases) which I do not support (so does 90% of self-defined classic liberals or social-democrats), since it does take for granted positions which were hardly common sense even in the 1850-1860s. I think there are no relevant informations about Bakunin in that forum (with all respect).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: martin76
Jan 2012
492
South Midlands in Merlin's Isle of Gramarye
It would appear that Bakunin had some sympathy for the ordinary white people in the South. The high motivation of the Confederate soldiery was not due to slavery but some other sentiment. However the immorality of slavery sadly taints the courage of these brave fellows. Bakunin must be understood in those terms.
 
Oct 2013
1,343
Monza, Italy
It would appear that Bakunin had some sympathy for the ordinary white people in the South. The high motivation of the Confederate soldiery was not due to slavery but some other sentiment. However the immorality of slavery sadly taints the courage of these brave fellows. Bakunin must be understood in those terms.
What was the difference with the ordinary white people of the North (in Bakunin's view)?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,983
I wrote the link.. but if you like another... Anarchy (Bakunin). (In Spanish). Mijail Aleksandrovich Bakunin, Sam Dolgoff, Marcelo Covián. Tusquest Editores. 1976. ISBN 84-7223-709-5. In this Book, Bakunin expresses its adhesion to the Confederate States and the Southern army.
As Mijail Bakunin never spoke nor Spanish nor English but German and Russian (and I assume that some French).. nor your references nor the mine ones are orignal sources but translations.

By the same reason, Spain, Britain and France were mostly Pro-South and Prussia, Austria and Russia mostly Pro-Union.

Bakunin was Pro-South because South defended their ways of life, their freedom against the Power and a very interesting economic system... (save Slavery).... Bakunin wrote in that book his sympathies pro-Confederate.

Other PRO-SOUTH: Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) the "Father" of the Anarcho-liberalism.... he wrote South was defending the freedom against the power (letter to Sumners, 1864. In this letter Spooner considered the Yankees more guilty of war than slavesholders.

So.. according with the book Anarchy wrote by M. Bakunin.. he was PRO-South.... Well... Karl Marx defended Charlist... Absolutist in Spanish Civil War (1872 - 1876)....So... dear Puigsville.... not so easy.. to say "leftist" were with Lincoln.... no dear... there were anarchist sympathizers with Jeff Davis and Communist ones with Abe Lincoln...there were ultra liberals supported South... and Socialist supported North....

by the way Proudhon supported South.... according with the book Anarchist.
I never said Leftist were with Lincoln.

Source, translation, page number. If you provide a source do it properly.
 
Jan 2012
492
South Midlands in Merlin's Isle of Gramarye
What was the difference with the ordinary white people of the North (in Bakunin's view)?
From what I have to hand I can see that Bakunin was impressed by pioneer America which in his eyes was socially free, utilising vast fertile open spaces for productive activity with little or no government in the European sense. He appeared to have nothing to say about the natives who were being displaced but that was normal for the European perspective at the time.

He condemned capitalism in America as it demanded high tariffs because it was unable to compete with European manufacturing. In other words protectionism propped up the state. This is where he came to support the Southern states as they had no manufacturing base so paid the higher tariffs. However he did argue that the social question that industrialisation was causing in Europe was increasingly applying to the United States.