Lates BS from Anthony on US History

["Mark Lause" <MLause@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Anthony repeatedly makes the fundamentally BORGEOIS assertion that all
classes (excepting slaves in this case) shared in the ideology of the
ruling class, tbat is, "the idea that the north and south of the United
States of America were united in western conquest of the lands of North
America, the lands of the North American indigenous people..."

Still, while the entire of American civilization--less slaves--is bent
on western conquest, he writes that antebellum America "included two
ruling classes - northern protocapitalists, and southern slaveowners."
Or, "You could call the state in the antebellum USA a kind of dual
power, although a very different kind of dual power than those which
existed in 1906 and 1917 in St. Petersburg."

So, to summarize, you have, as far as the whites and free blacks were
concerned, ruled by two ruling classes who play footsies with each other
from the American Revolution to the Civil War.

Not only does he add one plus one to equal three, but he gets the first
two numbers entirely wrong.

There's vast amounts of evidence against this asserted hegemony about
western expansion, not the least of which was the national blowup over
the War with Mexico that shattered the political party system of the
day...and the sectional conflict itself.  Since his entirely original
hallucination of an oddly monolithic society makes the Civil War
difficult to explain, he conjures this utterly bizarre version of having
two ruling classes sharing "dual power" within the same U.S. government
for nearly a hundred years.  As I wrote to him privately when he floated
this idea, I suspect he doesn't know what "dual power" is.

Anthony is a master of disjointed factoids, but he lacks the patience to
think about how they fit together...this coupled to an unwillingness to
address data that does not fit his version of reality.

Indeed, he typically acknowledged that "calling that state a kind of
dual power, will upset all of the rigid, unthinking traditionalists."
Get it?  If you challenge his blue-skying delusions about what is and
isn't dual power, you're being a "rigid, unthinking traditionalist."
Just like if you insist that he stick to facts, you're being
"conservative" and "academic."

Solidarity!
Mark L.




~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.