This is a reply to rg the lg from Dissident Voice. His words are in italics:
“Sure doing away with slavery was a good thing … but it was strictly a side affect of the war … not a cause.”
The best slave is one who doesn’t realize he’s a slave. Getting rid of chattel slavery led to the integration of imported blacks into imperial America.
It was a huge propaganda and mind control victory. By eliminating chattel slavery and instituting wage slavery throughout the states, the elite could claim that they had “eliminated slavery”, and most of the people believe it. The people also believe that Lincoln himself “eliminated slavery”, thus making it all the easier for the executive branch to increase it’s power.
There’s also “moving up the corporate ladder” – which is another way of saying “I’m a slave now, but I might become a master later (and my life’s work is to become the most powerful master I can be)”. This is appealing to Americans, to become a master and have slaves of one’s own. “Everyone can be a plantation owner” is another phrase for the American Dream. In terms of morality there is no difference between a corporation with masters (executives) and slaves (workers) and a plantation. The same shape with a different paint job.
Examine Americans and their historical reaction to the “end of the American Dream”. The primary reaction was depression and despair – depression and despair at no longer having the expectation of mastery and possessing slaves. How many Americans celebrated the end of the American Dream? Does Hunter S. Thompson’s “life as burnout” strike you as a celebration? Yet we are told by the left of all people that Thompson is a “good guy”. Americans of all political persuasions need to take a very hard look in the mirror.
There’s no proof that getting rid of chattel slavery was a good thing. It’s riddance led to a relatively unified America and paved the way for American Imperialism, which officially began in 1898 and increased dramatically after WWII. If we use the judgment that what is good for the elite is bad for the people, the elimination of chattel slavery was a terrible thing.
One might note that this kind of analysis applies to many other “activist” issues. An activist is someone who pressures the elite to institute some change. But since the elite control the propaganda machine, any change they institute (pressured or otherwise) they can and will claim credit for, thus building their own power in the minds of the people. Thus, according to Americans, Lincoln was a “hero”. According to this thinking, Obama is a “possible hero”. Thus they have “hope in Obama”. With this additional power and people’s trust they further entrench their power. We can trace Neoliberalism from this line.
The only way around this problem is to seize power from the elite, such that the people themselves become the power structure. The elite *as a class* must be destroyed.
Activists who don’t see the big picture and act accordingly often do more harm than good. And they are the people who are the most self-righteous, the most incapable of believing in their own errors. Everything they do is fine as long as it’s “for a good cause”. The point of activists is not to save the world or really even help the world – it’s to feel good about what they are doing. At that they always succeed.
Activism is the greatest drug in the world. They get high and then get higher, and then go home while the people give the elite all the credit.