The Ministry of Justice of the Donetsk Peoples Republic just announced that the death penalty will be on the table as a punishment for the nazis and mercenaries that will soon be put on trial for their crimes against the people of Donbass. The trial will begin soon. The nazis are being charged with crimes against humanity, genocide and mercenarism (all punishable up to the death penalty). There are 2 british citizens among them. Nazis be shitting their pants, libs be coping 🤣🤣🤣👌👌👌👌
The revolutionary war was not based. It was for the benifit of slavers and the Jeffersonian bourgeoisie. The only “right” side of that war was that of enslaved and Indigenous peoples.
The revolutionary war was progressive, Marx himself said it. You frame “progressive” and “reactionary” in idealistic moralistic terms, instead of materialist ones. The colonialism and genocide of natives would have happened whether the US became independent or not, that was not going to change. Slavery and genocide of natives began centuries before the american revolution. The independence of the US did allow however a great amount of progress in the marxist sense, both in the Americas and worldwide. It weakened british imperialism, the strongest imperialist force at the time, allowing many more nationalist liberation movements to happen in the future. It created a national US bourgeoisie that replaced the old comprador bourgeoisie, an important step towards socialism. It abolished any remnants of aristocracy and feudalism, allowing a full transition to free market capitalism and the associated massive development of the forces of production and socialization of production, an essential step towards a socialist revolution. Without a national bourgeoisie and without a developed form of capitalism there cannot be a socialist revolution. For these reasons, the american revolution was without doubt progressive.
I see what you’re saying but IMO this sentiment is eurocentric and fails to understand the contradictions that drive class society in North America. It also implies that socialism requires genocide and ecocide in order to develop when in reality it is anti colonial, and the US unchaining itself from the throne absolutely was reactionary in that sense. In fact, it has ensured the survival of colonial society as it usurped the colonial powers, rendering the weakening of the British superfluous as its former colonies were again trapped into neocolonial conditions. It would have been better if it fell apart the way it was, without an independent, vigilante nation like the US to continue the colonial legacy of capitalist development. And yes, colonialism was a capitalist development already even with the British crown, thus framing it as a Aristocracy - - - > Bourgeoisie = Progress is oversimplified and idealistic.
This is not a moral statement either. The American revolution is only progressive if you dismiss the class societies of Indigenous peoples and contradictions driving their development for a more familiar and watered down eurocentric discourse.
The inadequacy of framing the American revolution as progressive can be seen in the class development that is fostered here as well. That being classes of embourgiousieified workers and colonizers that are parasites on humanity (this also is not a moral statement). IMO If this notion was correct then socialist revolution would have been more likely than it actually was historically, and than it is today.