My opinion on him as an American is pretty negative, obviously he owned slaves and that is really bad but I also don’t think that the revolution was anti-imperialist enough, obviously Karl Marx was not even born yet but even if he was there is no way that the founders would incorporate socialism into the constitution. And George Washington immediately started expanding territory westward so he wasn’t an anti-imperialist at all but he just hated taxes.
Same as most of the founding fathers, a spoiled slave owner who started getting real idealistic when his money was even lightly fucked with. No love, no respect, and I'm not a military history dude but as I understand it he was a pretty bad general.
>>2732300I agree, I don’t think the British was good either but I don’t think we could ever adapt the founding fathers legacy to be socialist like how Cuba does with José Martí or Venezuela does with Simón Bolívar
>>2732301Would you say the germans should adapt the legacy of hitler to be socialist because he fought both britain and the usa?
Colonies that seceded from the empire they were a part of have always been genocidal and racist as fuck to gain and keep more territory. So, anti-imperialist my ass.
>>2732302No, I wouldn’t compare Washington to Hitler but even if, Hitler wasn’t the founder of Germany, they existed as a national identity way before him
>>2732304Uygha you’re retarded
>>2732305Provode an explanation you Bitch! Are you saying that he was just as bad as Hitler or are you denying that Germany existed before Hitler?!?! Nobody can tell what you are trying to convey when you ask a question and reply to may answer only calling me a retard you dumbass!
He was a bourgois revolutionary that freed America from foreign domination, united the colonies, and created a bourgois democracy
>>2732299 (OP)
>obviously he owned slaves and that is really badYes, it's bad if we examine it in the modern context but slaver interests were too great and could only be resolved by the 2nd American Revolution(Civil War/Radical Reconstruction)
>anti-imperialist enoughImperialism as Lenin described it didn't exist because capital didn't reach those heights of development. Expansion was needed to expand the capitalist mode of production and exchange.
>no way that the founders would incorporate socialism into the constitution.Socialism wasn't a necessity or a reality then
>>2732306>washingtonGenocidal
Owned slaves
>hitlerGenocidal
Didnt own slaves
Yankqui BTFO
>>2732308>”hitler didn’t own slaves”So i guess concentration camp prisoners were given full wages and pensions?
Washington was as bad as hitler
>>2732309Read Settlers. Washington put natives in camps. Washington was worse than hitler.
He didn't have wooden teeth, he had slave teeth
>>2732307But Britain already had a bourgeois revolution, which was essentially sparked by the whole "no taxation without representation" argument about 100 years earlier. The English killed king Charles for levying taxes without parliament's consent.
The colonies were being taxed by parliament, but didn't have any representation in said parliament. Essentially, the colonies got too rich too fast and demanded a spot at the table, but I doubt that would have saved their bourgeois appetite.
>Socialism wasn't a necessity or a reality thenIndustrialization was already taking shape during this time, with the first atmospheric pump in England being patented in 1711. The industrial revolution was taking place while the slave owners of the colonies were clinging onto their old Luddite ways and doing anything they could to save it.
Socialism had some sway in the English civil war with the diggers and levellers. Thanks Saint Thomas Moore.
>>2732311>luddite slaverycomplete nonsense. it was the slave masters who utilised the cotton gin to increase demand for slaves.
>>2732310Uygha, where the fuck did the nazis send political prisoners? Hotels?
>>2732312You are right, I misinterpreted the backwards-ness of American technology at the time. It was Britain who hampered the colonies technologically, with Britain's main idea that "the colonies should not be permitted to manufacture so much as a horseshoe nail"
my bad g
>>2732313Washington genocided and put entire nations in camps. Hitler lost and washington won. That alone is why the yanqui zioleft worship burger hitler
I hate him for being a closeted homosexual
>>2732311The English Civil War settled the struggle between monarchy and bourgeois forces inside England. It produced parliamentary supremacy after the execution of Charles I. That change applied to the English state, not to colonial political sovereignty. British North America was still subordinated to the Parliament of Great Britain. Local property-holding classes had economic development but lacked political control over the state governing them. That contradiction generated the conflict leading to the American Revolution. Metropolitan bourgeois revolutions do not automatically transfer sovereignty to colonies. Colonial elites frequently lead independence struggles once their economic development conflicts with imperial rule. The concept of Uneven and Combined Development explains why bourgeois transformations appear in different places at different times. England’s revolution in the 17th century and the American one in the 18th century reflect uneven development within the same world system. The American Revolution was a progressive bourgeois revolution that established a sovereign republic and removed imperial political control. England’s earlier revolution is historically related but does not negate the necessity of the colonial one.
Socialism emerges as a coherent doctrine with the rise of the modern proletariat in the 19th century. Industrial capitalism must first create a wage-working class before socialism becomes a material political program. In the mid-17th century this class barely existed. The English Civil War occurred in a society still largely agrarian. Groups such as the Levellers and Diggers fought for expanded political rights, equality before the law, and in the Diggers’ case communal land experiments. Their ideas arose from small producers, artisans, and rural poor resisting landlord power. They were precursors of later egalitarian ideas, not representatives of a proletarian socialist movement. Early inventions like Thomas Newcomen’s 1712 atmospheric steam engine were precursors to the later Industrial Revolution. The decisive expansion of factory industry and the mass proletariat occurs later in the late 18th and especially 19th century. The plantation system was deeply integrated into global capitalism. Cotton slavery expanded precisely because British textile industry demanded raw cotton. The contradiction was between slave labor and emerging capitalist social relations, not between “industry” and “backward farmers.”
>Thomas Moore Thomas More predates socialism as a historical movement. Utopia is a utopian precursor, not socialism rooted in the proletarian class struggle that develops with industrial capitalism.
>>2732394>>2732310>>2732308Okay bro you can’t compare George Washington to Hitler, Town Destroyer was definitely genocidal but Indian Reservations didn’t have gas chambers
>>2732307>Socialism wasn't a necessity or a reality thenNo it definitely was, most Native American societies have collective ownership of land
I'm reading a book about the American revolution to try and get a handle on it. I'm at the Stamp Act where local merchants in colonial cities would rile up local lumpen mobs to terrorize the respective colony's tax official appointed by Britain.
>>2732311>But Britain already had a bourgeois revolution, which was essentially sparked by the whole "no taxation without representation" argument about 100 years earlier … The colonies were being taxed by parliament, but didn't have any representation in said parliament. Essentially, the colonies got too rich too fast and demanded a spot at the table, but I doubt that would have saved their bourgeois appetite. That's my impression. The population was also growing extremely rapidly. But the language they drew on came from that tradition which then radicalized as Britain tried to tighten political control.
>>2733043most of the holocaust wasn't gas chambers
>>2733043>but Indian Reservations didn’t have gas chambersIf gas chambers had been invented, why wouldn't Washington have employed them?
* also, note that biological warfare was used against indigenous peoples.
Broke: George Washington
Woke: George Mason
Bespoke: George William Fairfax
>largest land owner who owned the most slavesbest founder is obviously an undisputedly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine >>2732307>>2732474This is what the Marxist consensus on the American Revolution should be. Unfortunately, what we have here instead are anti-Marxists in denial. What the United States of America did in history was that it harnessed the vast resources of the American continent and built capitalism with it. Without capitalism, you don't get socialism. Without 1776, you don't get the liberal revolutions that swept Europe and dealt feudalism a blow from which it never recovered from. I'd go as far as to way that without 1776, you don't get 1917. Anybody that denies this denies the very basis of Marxism.
>>2732311>>2733120I'm tired of this notion that George III was the first coming of John Brown. Nothing more laughable than seeing "Marxists" becoming apologists for the fucking British Empire. Slavery was a massive part of the British Empire and continued in British colonies like India and Australia over a century after its official abolition in 1833. Nine decades after the American Revolutionary War, the British would supply the Confederate secessionists with Enfield rifles and other military equipment that prolonged the Civil War. If you think the British wouldn't have backstabbed the Natives and slaves the first chance they got, you're a fool. If you want to know what they would have done if the British had won, just look at the history of Australia or Canada.
>>2733113Where would you put Curious George in all of this?
>>2733305no one is making apologia for King George, not me and certainly not Gerald Horne. it's a simple fact of material analysis that slavery was becoming increasingly nonviable, at least in North America and the Caribbean where there were a shitton of slave revolts happening all the time that were pitting the various colonial powers against each other. whether or not the British Empire would have "backstabbed" a successful slave revolt in North America is irrelevant alt history speculation.
I think a lot of people forget or don't know about many of the founding fathers being massive land speculators (many loyalists were as well), but it's my understanding that the nascent Patriot leaders weren't cozy enough with the imperial hierarchy so they felt more slighted by the existence of the Proclamation Line of 1763 set by the British that "officially" banned further settlement west.
>>2732301>Simón Bolívarhe owned slaves
but he also "became abolitionist"
(really he got btfo for the 5th time, exiled to Haiti out of desparation, and agreed to become """""abolitionist""""" (reformist on the slavery question) in exchange for ships and guns from president Petion)
sorry for the double parenthetical
>>2733348How late into adulthood did he own slaves? I thought his dad just owned slaves so it it wasn't his fault, was I wrong?
>>2733345So I suppose they were an aggrieved national bourgeois class that raised armies of urban proles and farmers, but what were the results in the short and long term?
For a long while a country of settlers on private holdings bought from the land speculators then eventually the federal government having to step in with the Homestead act to get settlers to populate the latter additions to the country. (much of the public land set aside for this was swiped by the bourgeois anyway)
Not to mention the piecemeal redistribution of plantation land during/after the Civil War.
A country stamped with private property (great property and petty holdings) from the beginning. The petty holdings and the ethos of such satiating an unfortunate amount of people.
With that said, I don't consider myself a sakai deadender, I just think it's the difficult terrain burgers must cut through.
I will add that Haiti suffered a somewhat analogous trend with newly liberated slaves preferring small family production rather than something that to them stank of the old plantation form.
>>2733045Indigenous societies in North America existed in pre-capitalist tribal formations. Land was often held collectively by kin groups or tribes, but this does not equal socialism. The collective landholding came from communal or clan property relations typical of early societies, not from the abolition of capitalist private property. Socialism in Marxist theory refers to a post-capitalist mode of production emerging from the contradictions of capitalism.
Unique IPs: 23