| The idea of an anarchist society is not merely a concept brought about by industrialization and globalization. An ideology that aspires to the philosophy of a society free from the holds of a permanent government controlling society is an idea that is over two thousand years old, dating back to ancient China and the Taoist philosophy of the best government is the one that governs the least. This philosophy was also present in Biblical times with the Zealots and their advocation of the violent expulsion of Rome from their Jewish lands. In this case, the philosophy underwent an evolution from just a philosophy of no government but an advocation of violent means to achieve their ends. And again it assumed a guise under the form of Guy Fawkes attempting to destroy Parliament in 1654 in England. Anarchism has been an underlying culture or train of thought in almost every culture, empire, or civilization since the beginning of time. Although it might not have been known at the time as anarchy, the main ideas of each philosophy have remained basically the same. A virtual non-existent government or no government at all benefits a society the most, and it is acceptable to use violent measures to achieve this end because anarchy's violence is not as bad as the violence of the government. Although outright anarchy calls for an elimination of government, it could be argued that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, was a pseudo-anarchist. |
 |
Jeffersonian Democracy advocated an agrarian society where the government only protected the borders and did not involve itself in the affairs of the people. Almost all anarchists call for the instillation of a anarcho-syndicate society where the citizens lived on a self-sufficient commune, close to that described by Jefferson. These roots were planted almost a hundred years before true anarchists made their way into American society in the post-Civil War era during the second Industrial Revolution.
The idea of anarchy and other counter cultures grew up as a result of the terrible conditions in the factories that produced most consumer goods during the Industrialization Revolution and the corruption that came with the Reconstruction in the South. As the Industrialization Revolution came into full swing, employers did all they could to produce as much as possible with the least possible costs. This meant low wages for workers and low safety regulations in factories. Many conscientious objectors came to the forefront of the labor movement. During Reconstruction in the South many corrupt politicians riddled the political scene, especially under the Grant administration, which caused many citizens to lose faith in their leaders. The result was a movement to bring down the so-called system of oppression in most places by anarchists. In response to this cry for change, the government began to police society more, so they could be certain no one could successfully threaten their power. Anarchists, while fighting for an idealistic cause, are labeled as terrorists because of their unorthodox beliefs on how people should live, and as a result of oppression and censorship they are sometimes forced to violent means to fight for what they believe in, although they try to maintain peaceful means and propaganda to create a revolutionary atmosphere in society.
According to Emma Goldman, anarchy stands for a belief in a society that lives beyond the restriction of man made laws and all governments rest on violence, and are there wrong and unnecessary. She also stresses that anarchy is based upon peace and equality for all humans, contrary to popular belief that subscribes to the thought that anarchy is an ideology that stands for violence and destruction. Anarchy merely roots out the evils in society that tend to limit and corrupt human life. It attempts to sustain a new, more vibrant form of life, more abundant than one controlled by social and economic classes, government, or religion (Goldman). Emma Goldman also argues that ignorance is the most violent element in society, and its power and parasitic hold on society is the very thing anarchy fights , as if capitalism spawns ignorance in the masses (Goldman). It is this ignorance in society that creates two separate economic classes. According to W.E. Trautmann, the upper class owns all the means of production and resources of the world and subjects society to laws to protect their class interests. The lower class attempts to change this balance of economic power (Trautmann). This is the anarchist struggle, to overthrow an obviously corrupt condition of living.
Anarchy also has a serious disdain for ownership of productive property. According to Alan MacSimóin, anarchists do not want to abolish personal property such as middle class luxuries, which should be available to all people. The idea of abolition of property means the abolition of private ownership of productive property, or the means of production. MacSimóin says that the means of production should belong to an entire society because in the hands of a singular owner, workers will be exploited by being paid less then what their work is worth (MacSimóin). Goldman notes that property has caused production of goods to far exceed the sustainable needs and as result of the wealthy attempting to achieve greater wealth. Wealth in a society equates to power, and power equates to the ability to “subdue, crush, exploit, enslave, outrage, and degrade” the working class . Property robs the worker of the fruits of his labor and the interest and desire of the things he is making. Material property loses touch with the real wealth of humanity, which is things of utility and beauty. Things that create strong, adept bodies, beautiful surroundings and inspiring creations.(Goldman)
Anarchists tend to have varying positions on a variety of subjects, but all anarchists believe the reason why humanity is currently in such a dire situation is because of the state or government in general. Emma Goldman says the reason why government is unjust is because the leaders of the government instill into society only the qualities that benefit them and keep them in power so they can perpetuate the cycle that is greed and wealth . She observes that government only seems to reduce mankind to “clockwork” (Goldman). Commonly seen as hand in hand with government is religion. This is because of the way the institution of religion is set up with hierarchy with church leaders exerting power over top of the laity of the religion. Anarchy realizes that if a religion requires a hierarchy to access their deity, it must be an oppressive system designed only to exploit its members. According to the Workers Solidarity Movement, religion is basically a placebo for social turmoil such as poverty and death. These conditions are seen as “God's will” and will be rewarded in the afterlife for accepting their plight in the physical world. It assumes that a human should accept hardships and not strive to create a better environment, more suitable for human consumption(“Anarchism and Religion”). Also, religion completely trivializes the human being and attributes all human achievement, in fact all human action, as dependent on God or a higher power.
The Red Scare is a classic example of how the state reacts when an internal force attempts to counter its ideologies. The event that stands out in front of all others in this time period is the trial of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. According to Paul Avrich, the customary view of these two men as merely two ordinary citizens at the wrong place at the wrong time is a misconception. These two men did not commit the crime they were accused of, the murder of two men, but they were not innocent. They were part of a militant anarchist sect (Avrich). At the time of their arrest they, were in the process of destroying their anarchist paraphernalia because of the majority of their sect had been deported or arrested (Blatt). During the extremely public trial, many respected intellectuals commented on the fact that the judge was racist, because they were foreigners. According to Martin Blatt, the defendants had alibis backed by multiple witnesses, but the evidence was ineffective because many of the witnesses could not speak English (Blatt). The defense chose the strategy of using the press to convince the public that this was a political witch hunt to attack foreigners and anti-American sentiments. According to Richard Newby, the defense even acquired the aid of the Italian government which threw the trial into an international event gathering unwavering support for the release of Sacco and Vanzetti. After an extremely public case that was condemned numerous times for its victimizing the defendants and ignoring evidence that would set the two men free, Sacco and Vanzetti were finally executed in 1927 (Newby).
The media also played an intricate part in intimidating the public into condemning all anti-American sentiments. In some cases, they even seemed to create enemies by accusing people who should not have been suspect. In a satirical essay Robert Benchley introduces an apparently model citizen, Peters, for his time period. He bought war bonds, advocated anti-German rhetoric, and pulsated with patriotism. With this being said, at a town meeting he said he would rather live in peace than in war. The next day, his name was printed in the paper on a list with convicted agitators. As a result, Peters is ostracized from society. With no where else to turn, Peters accepts this persona thrust upon him and is arrested with possession of dynamite (Benchley). Also during the strikes in Seattle, which were largely peaceful, the media painted a picture of chaos, death and destruction, although it was a peaceful strike (Burnett). This also happened when the Boston police went on strike. According to Aram Bakshiam, the media was comparing the labor movement to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and predicted our society being plunged into poverty and despair (Bakshiam).
The biggest attempt to quiet opposition was the Palmer Raids, pushed through Congress by Mitchell Palmer. In his essay, The Case Against The Reds, Palmer makes a valid point. The Bolsheviks destroyed the society and economy of Russia(Palmer). It is a good observation, which consequently led to intolerance and racist undertones which unfortunately led to many innocent people being arrested and deported (Burnett). As evidence of this racism, Palmer refers to radicals as foreign filth that was infecting the American workman with its revolutionary ideals (Palmer). According to Burnett, raids were wide-spread and non specific, even going so far as people being arrested for looking like radicals. In total, over 200,000 people were arrested or deported, even up to 4,000 people in one night. The detainees were held in extremely inhumane conditions, subject to beating. A number of people died while in containment (Burnett).
According to Dawen Gaitis, the struggle for the eight hour work day intensified with the creation of the Chicago’s Eight Hour Work League, headed by Albert Pearsons. In 1884 The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Union declared May 1, 1886 as their deadline for the creation of an eight hour work week (Gaitis).The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor was an annual congress dedicated to educating the worker on issues that affected him daily and how he could work for an improvement in his life(“The Samuel Gompers Papers”). By April of 1886, the Chicago City Council approved the eight hour work day for city employees after intense public rallying and lobbying. Employers conceded and more then 50,000 workers received the eight hour work day (David Linder).
This success prompted workers around the country to go on strike on May 1st to make the eight hour work day a national standard. The strike and all activities surrounding the strike for that day remained peaceful. The strikes and demonstrations continued on May 3rd, the same date August Spies was speaking at McCormick’s Reaper Works in Chicago, Illinois. According to eye witnesses, this peaceful demonstration was attacked by police with clubs and guns. Six people were killed, all protesters (Linder). That night Spies and numerous other labor leaders met to discuss how they were going to respond to the death of their brothers. All agreed to have a peaceful rally to commemorate the dead, and if the police interfered, George Engel plotted spontaneous bombings to occur throughout the city (“Who Threw the Bomb?”).
The next day, a peaceful rally of almost two thousand was held at the Haymarket Square. When asked to disperse, the leaders declared that they were peaceful and that they had the freedom to assemble in public (“Who Threw The Bomb?”). The police did not seem to share the same view as the leaders and began to advance on the protesters. It is important to note that the Chief of Police, John Bonfield, had an overwhelming history of being a brutal enforcer of his authority(“Who Threw The Bomb?”). At this point, someone threw a bomb at the police force, killing one and injuring countless others, six of them mortally. Immediately, the police descended onto the crowd, killing an undisclosed numbert of people, and injuring two hundred. It is unknown who actually threw the bomb, although there were countless witnesses who testified it was none of the eight who were eventually arrested(“August Spies”). Samuel Fielden, Louis Lingg, George Engel, Adolf Fischer, Oscar Neebe, Michael Schwabb, and August Spies were all arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder. It is important to note that the type of bomb that was detonated was widely believed to have been designed by Louis Lingg, even though he was miles away during the riot (“Let Your Tragedy Be Enacted Here”).
The trial began with the selection of the jury not being totally random, but being chosen by a special bailiff (“August Spies”). The nation was thrown into a frenzy, spurred on by the media. Therefore no one could be treated fair and justly under the criminal system as a result of media bias (“Who Threw The Bomb?”). All eight, save one ,were sentenced to death. Oscar Neebe was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. On November 11, 1887, four of the Haymarket Eight were executed at the gallows. Lingg was scheduled to be executed but he committed suicide the night before ironically by blowing himself up. (Linder). The others were pardoned by the mayor, a move that condemned his political career but is recognized by posterity as the legally correct decision.
A second example of violent means employed by anarchists was the bombing of the Los Angeles Times. On October 1st 1910, a bomb exploded outside the L.A. Times which weakened the second floor of the building, causing it to collapse and ignite a natural gas line. Twenty one people were killed and many more were injured(“The Los Angeles Times Bombing”). A second bomb was detonated at Harrison Gary Otis, the owner of the L.A. Times, and a third bomb was found at the home of the secretary of the Merchants and Manufacturers Association (“Bombing of the L.A Times”). The L.A. Times was targeted because Otis was part of the Merchants and Manufacturers Association, an extremely conservative and extremely anti-union association. James and John McNamara were accused of the bombings. This surprised the union world which assumed the brothers were being framed, as a result of their holding high positions in the labor movement. They both received full support from Samuel Gompers, the leader of the American Federation of Labor. He hired Clarence Darrows to defend them, after Darrows had successfully defended other union activists(“The Los Angeles Times Bombing”). Despite some questionable legal practices in apprehending the suspects and extracting evidence, the prosecution acquired a solid amount of evidence against the brothers. In light of this, Darrows convinced the brothers to plead guilty in exchange for prison sentences(“Bombing of the L.A. Times”).
Anarchists also used peaceful means, such as the general strike that took place in Seattle in February of 1919 to achieve their goals. Although the strike occurred more because of labor unions, anarchists also participated. According to Sharon Boswell, post World War I the government enacted pay cuts for shipyard workers as a result of lower production (Boswell). The 35,000 enraged shipyard workers went on strike and appealed to the Seattle Central Labor Council for support. At the prospect of a city wide strike tensions grew as newspapers predicted that no one would be able to get daily necessities they would need to survive and there would be rioting in the streets in an attempt to suppress anti-labor motives (Boswell).The Seattle Central Labor Council recommended a city wide strike and within two weeks the AFL and the Industrial Workers of the World voted to go on strike. Sixty thousand workers went on strike, and another forty thousand went on a sympathy strike(“The Seattle General Strike”). The predictions by the newspapers did not ring true as many impromptu cafeterias sprung up to feed the public and strikers. Instead of rioting in the streets, crime decreased dramatically (“The Seattle General Strike”). The strike lasted for five days and ended after pressure on the unions from other unions and international officers. After it was over, various raids occurred, and leaders from the headquarters of the IWW and the Socialist party were arrested and given unnecessarily long prison sentences for charges such as conspiracy to commit murder (“The Seattle General Strike”).
Anarchy is an idealistic philosophy which promotes the individual but is often mistaken as terrorists as striking back against instigators with violent means. In the anarchist philosophy peace is strongly stressed in contrast to these violent means. It seems whenever anarchists use violence, or propaganda of the deed, it is an outcry against a violent action directed towards them and their philosophy. It is like a war against an established order and a person, in which only the state is allowed to use violence. It seems the state has a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence; however a person may not use violence, even when it has been used by other governing bodies. The general public, it seems, is not ready for an anarchist society, because they are so used to the paradigm of a regulated society. But as history goes on, it appears as if society is crying out louder and louder, with each generation, for total freedom. Soon the words Albert Pearsons spoke moments before he died will ring true: “The time will come when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you are throttling today.”
'Anarchists do not want to
'Anarchists do not want to abolish personal property such as middle class luxuries, which should be available to all people...'
AMEN TO THAT!
I also sometimes call these little luxuries 'appropriate technology','found objects' and 'adult products'
And no-one will take them until they prize them from my cold dead hands.
"'Anarchists do not want to
"'Anarchists do not want to abolish personal property such as middle class luxuries, which should be available to all people...'
AMEN TO THAT!
I also sometimes call these little luxuries 'appropriate technology','found objects' and 'adult products'
And no-one will take them until they prize them from my cold dead hands."
some do not, some do, let's not act as if all anarchists are the same. as for myself i do not want to spread the lifestyle of the middle class but rather destroy it: same as it destroys the cultures of land based peoples and ecological habitats. i am convinced it cannot be changed and i am convinced of this because we live on a finite planet and it would take many more planets for everyone to live at the lifestyle of, say, the american middle class (and i am not into the idea of further fucking up this planet and then going and repeating this process in space or living in some banal cyber space). as far as i am concerned the goals and luxuries of the middle class are stupid (this is especially true of the protestant work ethic and keeping up with the jones') and they represent death in life. yeah, i have my share of consumer goods i like to play with, mainly when i have nothing better to do, but i only really feel alive in my relationships and excersizing my creative/destructive abilities.
that being said, i have nothing against middle class materialism as such. my problems come with what this way of life imposes on the rest of us and my feeling that it is not a way of life fit for a planet such as our own. in other words i am convinced there is no way middle class lifestyles can be made symbiotic with the rest of nature because they see nature as raw material for fabrication or something to be respected only if and when humans need it, never mind we are not the only beings in this world, and i am really, really, really, just flamingly, explosively incensed about the continued dispoession and slavery or extermination of what remains of the worlds land based culture. so if middle class materialism could be made to exist without all these things (including oppression of non-humans) i have problems with, i would accept it as a valid goal for some others that i happen to reject (i have grown up in this culture, it is empty and cancerous!). however, as long as the middle class obsession with property threatens things i actually value i consider it something to be obliterated with the extreme prejudice where it exists rather than democratized.
-lord rambler
Totally agree here. -Autumn
Totally agree here.
-Autumn Phoenix
Uh, is this article
Uh, is this article "attributable" to anyone?
Lax journalistic standards.
I mean I wrote it if that's
I mean I wrote it if that's what you mean. Junior Research Paper for English Class.
Anarchism also dates back to
Anarchism also dates back to the Cynics of Greece, around 300 BC to about 300 AD.
ann arky www.radicalglasgow.me.uk
Yeah. Diogenes was pretty
Yeah. Diogenes was pretty awesome. A simple life of virtue, shamelessness, self-sufficiency, frugality and mocking self-important douchebags is the life for me!
Anarchists in Modern
Anarchists in Modern History: Terrorists or Victims of the State
QUOTES FROM THIS APPEAR IN LOWER CASE, COMMENTS ON IT APPEAR IN CAPITALS
the Taoist philosophy of the best government is the one that governs the least.
THAT'S NOT ANARCHISM, THAT'S MINARCHISM. THE AUTHOR IS ALSO WRONG ABOUT THE JEWISH ZEALOTS, THEY WEREN'T ANARCHIST EITHER. STRANGELY ENOUGH, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW EXAMPLES OF GENUINELY ANARCHISTIC HISTORICAL MOVEMENTS OVER THE CENTURIES, BUT THIS AUTHOR DOESN'T MENTION THEM. IT SEEMS THE AUTHOR HAS QUITE A POOR KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY.
the form of Guy Fawkes attempting to destroy Parliament in 1654 in England
LOOK, I'M SORRY, BUT, IN SUGGESTING GUY FAWKES HAD ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ANARCHISM, THIS AUTHOR IS SHOWING CONSIDERABLE IGNORANCE OF HISTORY. FOR A START, THERE'S A DISCREPANCY OF FORTY SEVEN YEARS. GUY FAWKES'S ATTEMPT WAS IN 16O7, NOT 1654. ENGLAND WAS, AT THAT TIME, A PROTESTANT COUNTRY, BUT WITH A CATHOLIC MINORITY WHO WANTED A RETURN TO OBEYING THE POPE. AN EXTREME GROUP OF CATHOLIC ARISTOCRATS PLOTTED A COUP D'ETAT. THIS COUP D'ETAT DID NOT INTEND TO GET RID OF THE MONARCHY. BUT MERELY TO REPLACE THE KING WITH A CATHOLIC MONARCH.. GUY FAWKES WAS A MERCENARY SOLDIER WHO HAD SERVED IN THE SPANISH ARMY IN THE NETHERLANDS. HE WAS BROUGHT INTO THE PLOT BY THE ARISTOCRATS BECAUSE OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF EXPLOSIVES. THE PLAN WAS NOT TO "DESTROY PARLIAMENT" BUT TO ASSASSINATE THE KING AND MOST OTHER PROMINENT PROTESTANTS, WHO WOULD ALL BE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON A SPECIFIC DATE, FOR THE STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT. THE PLOTTERS WERE ENGLISH NATIONALISTS AS WELL AS CATHOLICS. KING JAMES HAD BEEN KING OF SCOTLAND FOR FORTY SIX YEARS BEFORE HE SUCCEEDED TO THE THRONE OF ENGLAND, JUST TWO YEARS BEFORE THIS PLOT. MANY OF HIS FELLOW SCOTS HAD FOLLOWED HIM TO LONDON, AND THIS PLOT ALSO INVOLVED DETAILED PLANS FOR THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF LONDON BY KILLING MANY THOUSANDS OF SCOTS. THEY HAD DRAWN UP A LONG LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES, NOT JUST OF SCOTS KNOWN TO BE CONNECTED WITH THE KING, BUT OF ALL THE SCOTS THEY COULD IDENTIFY IN LONDON. STRANGELY ENOUGH, THERE WAS TO BE ONE EXCEPTION TO THIS EXTERMINATION OF SCOTS - PRINCESS ELIZABETH, DAUGHTER OF KING JAMES. THE PLAN INVOLVED KIDNAPPING THIS 9 YEAR OLD CHILD, AND GETTING HER TO BE THE FIGUREHEAD MONARCH OF CATHOLIC BRITAIN. THE PLOT FAILED BECAUSE ONE OF THE PLOTTERS WARNED A CATHOLIC RELATIVE M.P. NOT TO ATTEND THE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT. THIS RELATIVE ALERTED THE AUTHORITIES TO WHAT WAS HAPPENING. DO ANARCHISTS ADVOCATE OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE? DO ANARCHISTS ADVOCATE A CATHOLIC MONARCHY? DO ANARCHISTS ADVOCATE ETHNIC CLEANSING? WELL, WHAT THE HELL DOES GUY FAWKES HAVE TO DO WITH ANARCHISM?
it could be argued that one of our founding fathers,
THE USE OF THE PHRASE "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS" IS AMERICAN NATIONALISM, NOT ANARCHISM.
Thomas Jefferson, was a pseudo-anarchist. [Blah Blah Blah]
THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS A SLAVE OWNER! A SLAVE OWNER COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED EVEN REMOTELY ANARCHIST. THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON FOR INCLUDING HIM IN ANY HISTORY OF ANARCHISM IS BECAUSE THE WRITER IS WRITING IN AN EXCLUSIVELY AMERICAN CONTEXT AND SEEKING TO APPEAL TO AMERICANS WITH SOME FAITH IN "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS".
Jeffersonian Democracy advocated an agrarian society where the government only protected the borders and did not involve itself in the affairs of the people.
JEFFERSON DEFENDED SLAVERY. UNDER "JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY" ONLY A MINORITY OF THE POPULATION HAD ANY SAY, WITH BLACKS AND WOMEN DENIED THE VOTE. SUCH A SYSTEM ISN'T EVEN "DEMOCRACY", NEVER MIND "ANARCHISM". MORE REGRETTABLE IGNORANCE BY THIS AUTHOR.
Almost all anarchists call for the instillation of a anarcho-syndicate society where the citizens lived on a self-sufficient commune
THERE IS SOME TRUTH IN THIS
close to that described by Jefferson.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ZERO TRUTH IN THAT !
Anarchists in Modern History: Terrorists or Victims of the State
OKAY, THIS ESSAY HAS SOME GOOD POINTS, BUT IT IS MARRED BY BEING AMERICA-CENTRED, AND BY CONSIDERABLE IGNORANCE OF HISTORY OUTSIDE OF THE USA, AS WELL AS BY SEEING CERTAIN AMERICAN "FOUNDING FATHERS" THROUGH ROSE-TINTED SPECTACLES.
D.C.
I like Thomas Jefferson, he
I like Thomas Jefferson, he had some very anti government views.
Your critique relies on the definition of anarchy being unchanging and that less advanced societies were not so less advanced.
I get tired of reading about the slavery issue and how it is so overblown and out of proportion with reality of then and now.
It is an easy issue to discredit anything in history
"oh yeah the so and so's were slave owners though..........."
spOOk
I agree with you, even
I agree with you, even Howard Zinn isn't that moralizing about history.
But come on, Jefferson won the election against Burr because of Hamilton. They were supposed to be opposites, but then defended each other. Two party system? I think not. CONSPIRACY!
The closer to the mark on
The closer to the mark on history and america would be Masonry.
Fifty one of the signers to the Declaration were Freemasons.
spOOk
Yes, understanding of what
Yes, understanding of what is meant by "anarchy" can change with time. But no way has it ever at any time meant a society based on slavery.How can you, "Spook", possibly call Thomas Jefferson "very anti-government"? He WAS the government! He came from a privileged background in the colonial elite, he became Governor of the State of Virginia (1779 to 1781), then he was the Secretary of State of the USA (1789 to 1793), then he was Vice-President of the USA (1797 to 1801), then he became the third President of the USA, for two terms, 1801 to 1809. The open practice of large scale slavery can not exist without a government to back it up. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner from adulthood until the day he died, in 1826. Thomas Jefferson strongly disagreed with another active participant in the American "Revolution", Thomas Paine, author of the "Rights of Man", about slavery. Thomas Jefferson was an internationally widely travelled man who was well aware of all intellectual discussions about slavery, he was well aware that there were people opposed to slavery, he was well aware of the arguments against slavery, yet he quite deliberately excluded slaves from the "liberty" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence which he drafted in 1776, and yet he never in the 50 years of his life AFTER that took any action to free his own slaves, nor did he support any move towards dismantling slavery in general in all that time. In fact, in arguing with Thomas Paine, he positively opposed freeing slaves, on the grounds that this would lead to "anarchy" !!!! How can you possibly claim somebody with such a long track record in government, somebody who specifically declined to abolish slavery on the grounds that this would lead to "anarchy", was "very anti-government"?
Dave C
You do realize that Thomas
You do realize that Thomas Paine used the american revolution to break out of poverty and ostracism in england into being a revolutoinary. he was a carpet bagger.
What are you, a liberal? The
What are you, a liberal? The Amerikan "Revolution" was totally *bourgeois* in nature - even more so than the French Revolution. It was concerned with securing property rights for white males which, in practise, meant not only the right to own slaves, but the right to forcibly seize land from "the merciless Indian savages." (Direct quote from the US Declaration of Independence)
I understand the bourgeois
I understand the bourgeois critique of the American revolution, but I do not believe it was entirely such, nor that the original motivations of the average American colonist/settler were bourgeois. There was a strain of thought, as demonstrated by Paine, that did not advocate what I would call an totally bourgeois revolution. You are right in stating that it was even more of bourgeois revolution than the French revolution. And I would agree that it was primarily a bourgeois revolution, but I would argue that the solidification of the American bourgeois revolution came a little after the initial revolution. My reasoning runs thus- the governmental ideals as exemplified by the Articles of Confederation were for the creation of the most limited government possible (as they conceived it). They were liberal and they were bourgeois, but they also allowed for far more participatory democracy as well as political experimentation. It was the fear of this political experimentation (radical ideas, for the times, mind you) like abolishing all former debt and the fear of mob rule that led to the Constitutional Convention, the proposed Constitution and the federalist papers, their arguments (clearly authoritarian ones) for the ratification of the Constitution and against the Articles. I suppose my critique of your statement is not one of disagreement, but rather qualification, that there were radical arguments within the revolutionary movement. In many ways the 'founding fathers' allowed these arguments to inspire people into action, but then quickly stamped out all radicalism. By the way, I am using the term radicalism loosely.
"They were liberal and they
"They were liberal and they were bourgeois, but they also allowed for far more participatory democracy as well as political experimentation."
Are you suggesting that "participatory democracy" is "radical" in nature? I realize that a lot of left-anarchists think this way, but I fundamentally disagree. "Democracy," whether "representative" or "participatory", is essentially bourgeois. Why? Because it presupposes such notions as "the body politic," "civic responsibility", "political rights", etc.
I think you missed a crucial
I think you missed a crucial point VZ. My argument was that this was radical for the time. I suppose my argument is that the American revolution had multiple facets, and, though it was ultimately a conservative and political (as opposed to social) revolution, that there were radical (again for the times- and as I noted at the end of the comment I am using this term in a rather loose sense) and social aspects.
As to participatory democracy being radical- I suppose that depends on how one defines radical. If one defines radical as being fundamentally different from the status quo, then the answer really depends on how one defines participatory democracy. Participatory democracy could exist in a number of systems, from very reactionary to rather radical.
IMHO, I think that participatory democracy can be radical, so long as it is voluntary and seeks to serve those who participate without infringing on the rights of others. I am not talking about a formal and artificial structure here. I am talking about people who have come together voluntarily to assist one another and who have agreed that they wish to function in a democratic collective. I don't know if the distinction I'm trying to make here is coming across clearly, or if you even see a distinction where I see one.
"I am not talking about a
"I am not talking about a formal and artificial structure here. I am talking about people who have come together voluntarily to assist one another and who have agreed that they wish to function in a democratic collective."
My question to you would be this: how can a "democratic collective" be anything OTHER than a "formal and artificial structure"? To me, the term itself evokes images of formalism and structure.
And another quick point: As
And another quick point:
As to participatory democracy being radical- I suppose that depends on how one defines radical.
Yes, of course it does. Pretty much every value judgment implied by a particular term depends on how that term is defined. What remains to be determined is why someone would want to adopt one particular definition over another. As far as I am concerned, any definition of "radical" that made room for "participatory democracy" is not one that I would find particularly appealing.
Right, I suppose my
Right, I suppose my statement was rather vacuous. I understand what that this is not something you want. And I am fine with that. However, my question for you, would you be ok if myself, my family, and my friends (this is obviously hypothetical as very few of them are anarchists) wished to have participatory democracy in a collective of sorts, would you use force to oppose it? Say we lived in a town or two working together for survival and pleasure, perhaps even coordinating with another like minded town or two to ensure that we had what we wanted/needed? I guess my shtick with some currents of anarchist thought is not the currents of thought themselves, but rather with some of the anarchists who seem hellbent on destroying anyone who advocates any sort of leftish anarchism. By the way, I wouldn't call myself specifically leftish, at least in the sense that i think this is the be all, end all of anarchism, nor that i believe that it is 'necessary' nor anything of the like, but rather, I believe that this is a legitimate form of anarchism and one that I find attractive (albeit in a modified manner).
"However, my question for
"However, my question for you, would you be ok if myself, my family, and my friends (this is obviously hypothetical as very few of them are anarchists) wished to have participatory democracy in a collective of sorts, would you use force to oppose it?"
Eh, I suppose I'd be okay with that. I just don't understand why you'd want to and would probably try to make it a point to change your mind.
"I guess my shtick with some currents of anarchist thought is not the currents of thought themselves, but rather with some of the anarchists who seem hellbent on destroying anyone who advocates any sort of leftish anarchism."
Destroying the people or destroying their arguments? I do not with to destroy leftists (although I've probably come off that way at times and have even felt it every now and then) but simply the ideology that they cling to. My reasons for wanting to do this are as that I see leftist analysis as irrelevant to existing historical conditions; collectivist morality as based on guilt, self-sacrifice, and implicit coercion; and that it fetishes the Rationalist notion of linear historical "Progress."
"By the way, I wouldn't call myself specifically leftish, at least in the sense that i think this is the be all, end all of anarchism, nor that i believe that it is 'necessary' nor anything of the like, but rather, I believe that this is a legitimate form of anarchism and one that I find attractive (albeit in a modified manner)."
Yes, it is "legitimate" in the sense that those who adhere to it genuinely desire to abolish capitalism and the State (whether or not they desire to abolish ALL hierarchical authority is open for questioning). However, legitimate does not mean desirable or even historically relevant.
Yes, Thomas Paine was in
Yes, Thomas Paine was in poverty before he emigrated. So were, and are, most other emigrants. Within a matter of months of arriving in America he published his pamphlet "Common Sense", which became a best seller and had a huge influence in providing an intellectual justification for rebellion. Then a few months after that the war of independence broke out. But Thomas Paine didn't just advocate rebellion, he joined the American forces and actively fought against the Crown. He later disagreed with conservatives like Thomas Jefferson because they didn't carry the idea of Liberty far enough. When the French Revolution broke out, Thomas Paine left the USA and went to join in this new revolution. He was initially welcomed, and made a French citizen, because of his book "The Rights of Man". But later he fell out with the new government in France too, and was imprisoned by them.
Thomas Paine was not an anarchist. But he was a more genuine revolutionary than frauds like Thomas Jefferson.
Dave C
As well as black slaves,
As well as black slaves, there were also a lot of white slaves in the early days of America. Robert Louis Stevenson's book "Kidnapped" deals with this. At one time, there were absolutely no beggars on the streets of Aberdeen, at that time the second largest city in Scotland. Why not? Because, if you begged on the streets of Aberdeen, the authorities seized you, and put you on a ship in Aberdeen harbor bound for Virginia, where you were sold to the highest bidder. But of course most American slaves were black, and had been seized elsewhere. As for the "free" emigrants, nearly all of them went to America to try to break out of poverty, so Thomas Paine was no different in that respect. They were nearly ALL "carpetbaggers". In fact, ninety nine percent of the "white" population of the USA are carpetbaggers. The only exceptions were the tiny minority of folk like George Washington, who came from a long line of English aristocrats. There is a castle in the north of England, near the town of Washington, dating back to centuries before 1776, where you can see a medieval arch carved with the Washington family coat of arms - the spurs and stripes. Does that sound familiar?
Dave C
Two of my favorite quotes
Two of my favorite quotes from Jefferson.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -- you must be a patriot D.C.
"For people to remain free an armed inserruction every twenty years would be recommended".
Slavery happened; whoop dee-doo. It is wrong to own people as property, but what I would like to point out is that these slaves were housed and fed. Economic slaves are not. How about the Irish that came to america during the potatoe famine?? They were conscripted to get citezinship and were bought with food and whiskey to do life threatening labor that slave owners were not about to allow their valueable property get damaged doing.
The Irish got displaced by the Chinese who didn't eat meat and potatoes but rice. They were easier to control than the Irish, mainly by opium, and cheper to pay.
Point is; Their were plenty of people that were considered less than slaves. No one is perfect or infallible.
Do you like Bey?, Kazinski?...........
spOOk
"It is wrong to own people
"It is wrong to own people as property, but what I would like to point out is that these slaves were housed and fed. Economic slaves are not."
Yes they are. That's what supermarkets and housing developments are for. Government housing (housing projects) is undoubtedly a form of cheap shelter given to wage-slaves in order to keep them contained and subdued, hence the reason why places like the Queens bridge housing projects resemble prisons.
Damn good point Eye! spOOk
Damn good point Eye!
spOOk
Thank you. Bit of a no
Thank you. Bit of a no brainer though, don't you think (at least, for an anarchist)? I've seen you make better arguments than that, sp00k. You should eat some Cap'n Crunch, that will get you going! [just kidding, I just like Cap'n Crunch]
:D
I had some rice a roni and a
I had some rice a roni and a couple fruit and nut granola bars.
I am feeling better, xcept for this damn ear infection.
spOOk
"Slavery happened; whoop
"Slavery happened; whoop dee-doo. It is wrong to own people as property, but what I would like to point out is that these slaves were housed and fed. Economic slaves are not."
yet, time and time again, the slaves chose to run away and take their chances as economic slaves. throughout the 250 years of legalized slavery in this country, time and time again slaves chose to run away, or resist in countless other ways. wonder why that is? oh yeah, because American race slavery sucked waaay more than economic slavery. i mean, is this even an argument? do i really need to point out the widespread use of rape, terror, legalized murder, incessant beatings, malnutrition, breaking up of families, etc. that was a daily part of American race slavery. let's just say it was a dehumanizing experience far beyond what most working class white people ever experienced - and this is not meant to diminish the experiences of Irish tenant farmers who died during famine times. and im sorry, but the legacies of slavery are still with us, and being dismissive to the importance of this horrendous institution (and ignoring the culpability of those who perpetrated their heinous crimes) will only make it harder for us to understand the effect of these legacies today.
Are you proposing digging up
Are you proposing digging up the culpable parties and putting their corpses on trial?
"rape, terror, legalized murder, incessant beatings, malnutrition, breaking up of families"
These things you list here (above), are you saying that this does not happen in this day and age of economic slavery?
I would like to hear/read a feasible solution to what has happened in past considering slavery. All that is ever read is bitching and condemnation of race slavery and what past societies commited it so they must be "ALL" bad.
I get tired of absolutes that do nothing. Race slavery is no longer an issue but economic slavery is.
Simple capitalist economics make slavery simpler and cheaper by not actually "literaly" owning someone, but by controling their means to survive.
spOOk
Spook wrote "I would like to
Spook wrote "I would like to hear/read a feasible solution to what has happened in past considering slavery"
Yes, all past societies were, in various different ways and to various different extents, "bad".
A libertarian socialist/anarchist transformation of society is always possible and revolt against slavery is always justified.. The fact that a libertarian socialist/anarchist transformation of society didn't happen doesn't prove it couldn't have happened.
As somebody else pointed out, far from being submissive, black slaves in America DID revolt. In fact, the extent of that rebellion is greatly underestimated. And there were some white folks who realized that slavery restricts EVERYBODY's freedom. Thomas Paine, for example. And the Anti-Slavery Society, formed in London, had both white and black members, Christian and Atheist members, and some of its members who spoke out most passionately against slavery were themselves former slaves.
Yes, of course we should oppose wage slavery. And I for one have been extremely active in doing so. But that isn't the issue. The issue is that some anarchists can still write glowingly about "our founding fathers" and praise Thomas Jefferson as if had something to do with anarchism. He didn't. Thomas Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with anarchism.
Dave C.
All of them?
All of them?
Yes, all of them. No
Yes, all of them. No exceptions. Some societies were absolutely horrific, while others weren't so bad, but, like I said, all past societies were, in various different ways and to various different extents, "bad". Not just some anarchists, but lots of different groupings, with lots of different ideologies, in lots of different countries, hark back to some "Golden Age" or other. The glorification of "Jeffersonian democracy" is just one out of many thousands of examples of this idealization of a past that never existed. The idea that there was some sort of "Golden Age" at some point in the past is a myth.
Dave C
"Point is; Their were plenty
"Point is; Their were plenty of people that were considered less than slaves. No one is perfect or infallible."
This statement is making a huge value judgment that I, and it seems others, just simply cannot agree with. How does one deduce human value to a kind of zero sum game? What was the scale of comparison for an Irish servant, a Chinese laborer, or an African slave? Did each person, and each landowner, have a similar value scale? If we use, as you seemed to have done, housing and access to food as the primary scale, then one could easily make an argument that hardly anyone in world history has really been oppressed. The majority of people living in America today have access to food and houses; does this mean that only the homeless or those who rent are in a precarious or undesirable state?
What I find particularly interesting in US history is the amalgamation of various cultural tendencies. The African slaves, the indigenous, the Irish servants, etc, all made up a really interesting social experiment. However, looking at men like Jefferson does not give an accurate depiction -- particularly of what could be described as an anarchist current running throughout the period -- of the colonies.
And lastly, I think flippant derision of slavery, or any system like that is really one main short-coming I have seen coming from a lot of anarchists as of late. It seems to stem from some fear of "moralizing." But I think, from what I've read at least, lately, is that people really seem to be disparaging others points of view with rhetoric like that. Someone could also state Holocaust whoop dee-doo, sexual assault bla-bla-bla, Guantanamo prison sentence BAH!!! FOOLISH MORALISM!!! But all this really does is dismiss each of our personal stories and histories.
As someone wrote, "being dismissive to the importance of this horrendous institution (and ignoring the culpability of those who perpetrated their heinous crimes) will only make it harder for us to understand the effect of these legacies today." This same can be said of almost any previous institution, particularly if the effects have not been wiped away. One could easily state, that giving precedence to one issue over another is not desirable either; but that also erodes a lot of the human aspect out of historical studies, and human relations. We all have a story, and understanding each others should not be dismissed this flippantly.
I think the point was
I think the point was flippant dismissal by the slave owner card concerning jefferson. but yes things go both ways
i agree with spook, at the
i agree with spook, at the time owning a slave was as normal as any "commodity" now
-olliebolton
yea the reason why it was
yea the reason why it was american centered was because it's a American Literature Class, so I kept it american. Jefferson was in favor of a society of small agrarian farmers so close to self sufficient communes. Taoist and Zealots were about to as close to anarchism in history that i knew off without having to research, and I guessed with the guy fawkes date, which in my opinion isnt the main issue, the fact that he tried to blow up parliament is the issue. and about seeing founding fathers through rose tinted glasses, jefferson was a fucking bad ass, minus the slaves.
Okay, if it was written for
Okay, if it was written for an American literature class that explains your emphasis. But so far as Guy Fawkes is concerned, it wasn't just the date you got wrong. Do you link anarchists to the 9/ll attacks by Islamic fundamentalists? That would make about as much sense, in other words, none at all! Fawkes was a professional mercenary soldier who had fought for the Spanish army of His Most Catholic Majesty, seeking to suppress the Netherlands rebellion. Because of his professional experience with explosives, he was brought into an aristocratic plot to kill the king and replace him with a monarch who would acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope. They even had a candidate for this job - the king's own 9 year old daughter, who they planned to kidnap and use as a puppet ruler. Apart from using her, they planned to kill all the thousands of other Scots in London. Papal supremacy, a catholic monarchy, ethnic cleansing - Guy Fawkes had absolutely nothing at all to do with anarchism.
Dave C
"THAT'S NOT ANARCHISM,
"THAT'S NOT ANARCHISM, THAT'S MINARCHISM. THE AUTHOR IS ALSO WRONG ABOUT THE JEWISH ZEALOTS, THEY WEREN'T ANARCHIST EITHER."
The Taoist philosophy also says the world (meaning the natural world) does not need ruling. I think the zealots were a bit more Anarchist than you give them credit for, but a better case could be made for John the Baptist, Jesus and the early Christians as being proto-Anarchists in that time/place.
I'm not sure the early
I'm not sure the early Christians were anarchists. Unlike Thomas Jefferson and co, the early Christians were certainly against slavery; but opposition to slavery by the church vanished a few centuries later, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, under the emperor Constantine........
Nevertheless, the early Christians strongly rejected the form of society in which they lived. For one thing, they were definitely communists (with a small "c"), although whether or not they were anarchist-communists I'm not sure.
"the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul : NEITHER SAID ANY OF THEM THAT AUGHT OF THE THINGS WHICH HE POSSESSED WAS HIS OWN, BUT THEY HAD ALL THINGS IN COMMON." - The New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 4, Verse 32.
Dave C
I'm not to sure about
I'm not to sure about that.
Jesus and his parables had a lot of masters and manservants in them.
The old testament has a lot of the main players having servants who were basicly slaves. Sarah gave Abraham her handservant Haggar to beget a child, sex slave anyone? which in turn gave birth to Islam.
Jesus did have a lot of radical ideas for his time, some could even say Bhuddist.
Jefferson also had a lot of radical ideas for his time.
The period of enlightenment, renaisance came after Fuedalism which was just another form of slavery.
I could go as far to say unless one is descended from the Royal lines, then you have an ancestor who was a victim of slavery, who was owned in one way or another. If they fought back well then the local magistrate got to beget his bastard on your wedding night!
If history is viewed as means of past control then we have come a long way. We need to continue to change just as the ways of control keep changing with the times.
spOOk
Thats a good point,the
Thats a good point,the context of the times and the social evolutionary nature of cumulative historic experience.As an assumption,possibly the first moralising of the semetic tribes in their mythical laws had Adam as the naive(it wasnt his fault because this is a patriarchal system and men are never at fault) country lad who enjoyed running around in the garden,Eve,the temptress and slut(infact a very sensuous and brave realist who knew what it was all about,but women have to be blamed for something big,so they can always be shamed),the devil in the form of the most slandered animal on this planet,and God,the boss,who calls the shots for the good of all(but infact is an aged uptight conservative anal retentive jealous of youths joys and lifestyle)And I assume there are still people clinging to this oppressive ideology in THE moralistic sense.In a way only the veneer of culture changes rapidly,but the humanity does so in small increments,which unfortunately regress as well as advance,but has been left behind by the exponential nature of technological advance.Thus we have the conceptual term modern,which means nothing unless reified as technology. gilligan
I forgot the icing.The apple
I forgot the icing.The apple on the tree of knowledge should not be forbidden,because the apple is in fact 'common sense',but the authority and scam of religion inverted it to an esoteric control symbol to silence dissent or enquiry and create an elitist priesthood who were the only ones with the 'knowledge' (common sense)The ultimate standover tactic. gilligan
I'm defining history here as
I'm defining history here as "a branch of knowledge dealing with past events' gilligan
The dominant ideology at any
The dominant ideology at any time in history is the ideology of the ruling class. For a system of governing society to continue it has to have at least the acquiescence of most people. Most people may not actually like the way things are, but, nevertheless, as long as the ideology of the ruling class continues to have some hold on their minds, it will continue to be the ruling class. At periods in history when this hold on people's minds slips, then you get revolution. This revolution _may_ (nothing certain about this) include some with anarchistic ideas, but it will probably also include some of a more authoritarian nature. If the more authoritarian strand wins out, then the revolution may either end up being defeated, or throwing up a new ruling class. This is what has ALWAYS happened so far. The idea that it doesn't necessarily have to be that way, the idea that it really is possible to do away with folk ruling over us altogether, is what gives us hope for the future.
Thomas Jefferson was never actually a member of an oppressed class. He came from a privileged background within the colonial elite, and it was quite natural for him to become a member of the Virginia "parliament". The colonial elite decided to shrug off the yoke of British rule, which had become a nuisance, for various reasons. (One of them being the British tried a bit harder than the colonists to keep some agreements made with the Native-American nations, so the British refused to condone the colonists' westward expansion beyond the Appalachian mountain chain). Jefferson played a part in throwing off British rule. But the colonial elite never had any intention of relinquishing their own privileged positions. In Pennsylania, for example, the biggest state in the union population-wise, the American "revolution" actually resulted in FEWER people being able to vote than before the "revolution".
Thomas Jefferson is credited with "writing" the Declaration of Independence. He certainly put pen to paper. But some of the ideas contained in it were ideas which were quite widespread at the time, for instance, ideas taken from Thomas Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense". However, Jefferson and co made sure the "Liberty" they talked about didn't include the black slaves, nor did it include the Native-Americans. And they weren't even too sure about extending it to all poor whites.
"Spook", you saying that "Jefferson had a lot of radical ideas for his time" implies that, during Jefferson's lifetime, he was just about as radical as it got. That is complete nonsense. NOTHING that Jefferson said was actually new, all of his words had been said by somebody else before him, Jefferson just happened to be in a position within the ruling elite which made people pay more attention to HIM saying them. The significant thing is not that he said the same things as some other folk, but that he quite deliberately REJECTED the more radical thoughts of some other folk. "Jefferson had a lot of radical ideas for his time" implies that, for his time, he was just about as radical as it got, and that just isn't true. There WERE plenty of folk with far more radical ideas during Jefferson's lifetime. They just weren't part of the elite.
I am very suspicious of "for his time" arguments, not just with regards to Jefferson, but with regard to many other folk, in many different countries. Although of course we do have to take the historical context into account, ask yourself, who SAYS what the historical context was? It often turns out, on closer research, that there WERE folk with more radical ideas around AT THAT TIME. It's just that most folk haven't heard about them. Why haven't most folk they heard about them? Well, that's obvious! The victors wrote the history books that most folk were taught from at school, and the dominant ideology is the ideology of the ruling class. So you end up with slave owners like Jefferson, Washington, in fact, the majority of the "Founding Fathers", being held up as champions of Liberty.
It's not even just in the USA that folk get taught crap like this. From 1776 onwards, the main opposition party in the British parliament actually supported the American "Revolution", they even held parties to celebrate American victories over their "own" troops, and the Leader of the Opposition deliberately went to the House of Commons wearing clothing in the colors of Washington's army. As soon as it was obvious Britain had lost the "colonies", this supporter of the Americans became the Prime Minister, and, from then on, you got glorification of the "Founding Fathers" of the USA in Britain as well. That situation, of official glorification of the "Founding Fathers" of the USA in Britain as well as in the USA, has never been reversed. Although you don't get this to quite the same ridiculous extent as in the USA of course.
As long as you still retain an element of that way of thinking, the ruling class still has some hold on your mind.
Dave C
Reads a lot like the
Reads a lot like the complaint/assumption that most anarchists today are privileged middle class white elitist youngsters in college.
I said I liked Jefferson. I like a lot of different esoteric writings from various people.
I take ideas where and when I find them that seem right to me.
This is why I usually stay out of the discussions on various authors and their schools of thought.
I might like something Goldman, Marx, Lenin, Aristotle, whoever the fuck wrote.
I try not to dismiss them based on what they did (I have been known to).
I personaly believe if Jefferson was resurrected from the grave that within two weeks of checking this country out. He would be telling people to get their guns that it is time to start the fuck over.
spOOk
Yeah spOOk I can also see
Yeah spOOk I can also see beyond the historical veil.They say Jesus has already come back,took one look at the world and became a junky in NY. gilligan
I thought he was a junkie
I thought he was a junkie the first time he put on flesh!!
Him and the 12 bros smokin the frankinsesamalia, dropping figs and fishing a lot and then moving on to next village before Magdalene caught up with his ass for the back child support lambs that were due........
spOOk
Spook wrote "I said I liked
Spook wrote "I said I liked Jefferson".
Yes you did. You obviously have a high opinion of him. Me, I'm not impressed. I'm not a believer in any of the "Great Man" versions of history. The very fact that you think it important what he would be "TELLING" people to do shows your attachment to "Great Man" ideas. Me, I see no evidence that Jefferson ever had an original thought in his life, and I see plenty of evidence that he was a conservative who resisted moves towards real liberty.
Your fantasy about if Jefferson was resurrected from the grave he would be telling people to get their guns and start over shows you really do still swallow some of the "Founding Fathers" crap you were force fed from a very early age. Yes, if Jefferson was around, it's quite possible he would be in favor of an insurrection. For one thing, there's a BLACK MAN in the WHITE HOUSE, something a racist like Jefferson would find intolerable. But his reasons for wanting an insurrection would not be anarchist reasons, the kind of revolt he would want would not be the kind of revolt that anarchists want, and sooner or later there would be conflict between real revolutionaries and fakes like Jefferson.
Dave C
You know what. I have been
You know what. I have been polite and respectful. I have not responded to your baits and assumptions about my person.
You do not like what I think, fine. You have that right.
Why do you have that right?? Possibly some of that founding fathers crap like say "the bill of rights".
Who is the racist? Who brought the race slavery issue in to this post thread? Who continues it to the present with a label attached to our current figurehead in the U.S.?
Who is making value judgements on "real revolutionaries" and what "anarchist reasons" are.
Who is making ignorant claims?
Jefferson was actually AGAINST slavery!! the Declaration of Independence was fought over for three days! Reason is in original draft Jefferson freed them!!! The revolution would not have happened though, some colonies would not have supported it and hence...........
As for Jefferson "borrowing", "Stealing"others ideas, "not having an original thought in his head" ....How dare he!!! How un-American!! How un-Anarchist to not respect intellectual property rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What is actually original now a days anyway?
Do you now wish to discuss Abe Lincoln and his trying to send freed slaves back to Africa, the greenback and nationalised or privatised banking??????????????
spOOk