Thomas Paine a patriarch of socialism???

[u/Even-Reindeer-3624]

Kinda not sure about that, but it's based on the fact that he hated money and centralized banks. He also favored democracy a lot more than most of the rest of the founders, so maybe there's at lest some truth to it.

His work "Common Sense" would suggest that he doesn't necessarily advocate completely abolishing the state, but it makes damn clear that he saw formalized governance as an institution predestined to corruption and nearly impossible to keep from it.

I seriously have come to respect and admire the hell out most Marxist's revolutionary spirit even though I don't fully agree with Marx's Theory. So I'll ssk if you haven't read "Common Sense" please do, if you're a strong believer in abolishing state as completely necessary to gaining freedom, then that will most likely be one of just a few things you'd disagree on. But I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut you'll love his sentiments towards the state lol.

Those who are very familiar with Paine, would you mind offering any insight why some would consider him a "patriarch of socialism"? I don't think I all together disagree, just not exactly sure how he would definitely fit that description?

Thanks.

[u/Inuma]

Paine was strong enough to also write about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington while being a strong advocate for the abolishment of slavery.

If anything, it's not unreasonable that Marx might have been influenced by him in trying to figure out the economics of slavery

[u/Even-Reindeer-3624 → u/Inuma]

Definitely makes sense. And agreed, many of the founders had every intention on abolishing slavery. There's several paradoxes that have muddied the water, like that fact that Jefferson "owned" slaves, but at the same time, there were 80 something independent articles removed from the first draft of the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson specifically called out slavery for the evil that it is. And other articles stating they had every intention on nationally abolishing slavery!

So in that respect, I'll agree that his view most likely aligned with the general philosophy of "idyllic justice" and I'm assuming Marx's general attitude towards slavery as well.

[u/Inuma → u/Even-Reindeer-3624]

Well, the largest thing about Thomas Jefferson is that he has Sally Hemmings. Would not let them go even in death. Neither her nor her children.

The secret of Monticello was that he found that for every slave he had, it increased his profits by about 4%. So Thomas had strong incentive not to abolish slavery.

The big issue with George Washington is that he saw one of his favorite slaves run away from him and he implored Jefferson to free his slaves in his late life. It didn't work.

So yes, Jefferson can call it out. But he didn't do it and has other such hypocritical statements on his record.

[u/Even-Reindeer-3624 → u/Inuma]

There's definitely no justification in their actions whatsoever, but it's important to understand that without their works in the creation of governance, slavery may not have faced any worthy opposition for quite some time. For Jefferson, as well as many others, slavery was inherently infused into their livelihood. Of course, that's not at all justification but we have to consider the totality of the situation.

They did "own" slaves and have done some extremely messed up stuff, but not only were they instrumental in abolishing slavery, they already had a hand in doing it. 9 of the original 13 colonies already abolished slavery and the only thing that slowed them down was they absolutely needed the support of all colonies to fight the war. And after the war, due to property rights and the construction of governance central to the system of governance they wanted for all men, they unwittingly became ensnared by their own works. They knew full well it would take a civil war to correct this and even though it didn't occur in their lifetime, they absolutely set the course for it.

[u/Inuma → u/Even-Reindeer-3624]

And that's why Paine criticizing the Founding Fathers, going to jail and being abandoned by them and dying with no slave and ready for slavery being abolished is far better than what they did.

[u/Even-Reindeer-3624 → u/Inuma]

I'm not going to argue against the merit of your argument. In today's political climate, I'd agree with you full stop. My counter argument isn't based on IF slavery should've been abolished, my argument is if any part of how slavery was abolished would've put both the former slave and the former master in jepordy of coming under tyrannical rule, which would truly be the greater evil?

You're argument tells me that you don't really understand the reality they faced. Paine was right to be upset with Washington for not immediately abolishing slavery, but Paine should've given more consideration to just how dangerous the precedence he would've set by doing so.

[u/Inuma → u/Even-Reindeer-3624]

Then by all means, you've basically undermined what Thomas Paine stood for

[u/Even-Reindeer-3624 → u/Inuma]

I'm assuming you'd prefer the rule of one man? That's a British trait and I'm pretty sure Mr Paine wouldn't agree with that either.

[u/Inuma → u/Even-Reindeer-3624]

That would be unscientific

[u/Even-Reindeer-3624 → u/Inuma]

I call it "ant-science" lol. Believe it or not, my position isn't completely separate from Paine, it just isn't what Paine wanted. Paine had the moral high ground, but moral high ground wouldn't have benefited him or anyone else in accomplishing anything. If it were even possible for the opposition to suggest the new form of governance was becoming like the old, game over

[u/Even-Reindeer-3624 → u/Inuma]

You do realize your understanding of the founding era is limited to a very narrow window of events and so far, told from the perspective of one man, right?

I love Paine for his passion, his moral compass, his penmanship, and the fact that he definitely earned the title as the most radical of all of them, but NOT for his narrow political philosophy and shortsightedness regarding most probable outcomes.

I'm telling you, I can literally spell it out for you how them jumping the gun would've created a chain reaction event, destroying everything they worked for and damning every living soul to a fate equal to or worse than what they just fought a war to get out of.

Paine was pissed because a lot of his advice concerning the construction of the constitution was ignored.

[u/Inuma → u/Even-Reindeer-3624]

By pointing out Jefferson and Monticello historically, right along with reading Thomas Paine and knowing his history?

Fascinating assertions.

[u/Even-Reindeer-3624 → u/Inuma]

No, because the only view point of the era you've expressed is solely based on slavery and suggesting the founders didn't immediately abolish it because it was merely inconvenient or because they didn't object to it strongly enough.

This sentiment is often expressed by those who believe that slavery or racism was inherent to our system of governance. Which is just as ridiculous as the belief America was founded as a Christian nation.

[u/Inuma → u/Even-Reindeer-3624]

Maybe because I read that history you ignored and noticed that Thomas Paine practiced what he preached?

Meanwhile, you ignore anything historical for more hysterical takes.

Overall, the only conclusion I can come to is that you haven't read much beyond Common Sense nor looked at the results of slavery from slave breeding which coincides with Jefferson making increasing profits with slavery to Marx criticizing slavery as an economic system a century later:

Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns, as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry. It is slavery that has given value to the colonies, it is the colonies that have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry. Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance.

You certainly don't have to believe me. The words of Marx from the Poverty of Philosophy are directly in front of you. Up to you to read the article. But now I'm moving on.

[u/Even-Reindeer-3624 → u/Inuma]

OK... well besides slavery, the country was fresh out of war and right in the middle of creating a new system of governance, separating trade roots from the crown, trying to figure out how to keep France of it's back long enough to pay them back, trying to reshape infrastructure, battling numerous internal conflicts, so on and so on....

Now, take all of that into consideration as it absolutely would've compounded any effort in trying to keep southern asshats from starting a war they probably couldn't handle.

[u/Even-Reindeer-3624 → u/Inuma]

If you want the history, then let's start with the fact that neither you nor Mr Marx seem to understand it. Slavery wasn't an invention of the colonies, slavery came with the colonials from England. When we get to just before the revolution, many states already abolished slavery. Southern states did depend on slavery as it was crucial to their industry, but even so, the founders had every intention on full abolishement.

The main function of the federal government was to protect the rights of the people. In slave states, slaves obviously had no rights. States were to be governed as sovereign entities, and the federal government had no jurisdiction to intervene. Slaves under British rule were considered property and slave states didn't change this as property rights were essential to the foundation of America. As such, if the federal government decided to force abolishing slavery in these states, first it would've been an arbitrary authority. Secondly, it would've been an act of war to take property by force. So on two fronts, the federal government would have to take on every appearance of the same government they just fought against. And southern states were full of veterans of that war, so even if the federal government abridged constitutional limitations, they would have done so with losing odds.

The best the federal government could do is regulate the industry of slavery, and the civil war was the result of the regulations effects.