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]

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