Log in

View Full Version : For July 4: Anti-capitalist Declaration of Independence



cyu
2nd July 2009, 21:00
Excerpts from http://everything2.com/node/1991656

Several years ago when I still considered myself a democratic socialist (and a strong supporter of independent labor unions), I wrote an article in support of strikers at GM during Independence Day.

The first comment I received about the article was, "This sounds like an anarcho-syndicalist treatise." That was the first time I ever heard of the term. I looked it up. I had never seriously read much about anarchism before that point. It made me wonder if the American revolutionaries were anarcho-syndicalists without knowing it - or if the early anarcho-syndicalists had taken their inspiration from the American Revolution.

Today I wonder just how many of us have truly read the contents of the original Declaration of Independence and understood the implications of what the document was proposing. The article below will hopefully help illustrate just how "radical" those same ideas would sound to many of us today.
--------------------------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all women and men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Corporations are instituted among Women and Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the employed. That whenever any Form of Corporation becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Corporation, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Corporations long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Corporation, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Unions; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Corporation. The history of the present Chief Executive Officer is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these Unions. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in a Union, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has dissolved Representative Unions repeatedly, for opposing with righteous firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Union powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these Unions; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Organization of Unemployed; refusing to pass others to encourage their employment hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Companies.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their campaign finances.

He has abdicated Corporation here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of paramilitary Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized company.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Union, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited internal insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to co-opt and bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Scab Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, faiths, races and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our deunionized brethren.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.

We have reminded them of the circumstances of our organization and assembly here.

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United Unions of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Assemblies, solemnly publish and declare.

That these United Assemblies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent Companies; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Wall Street Crown,

and that all corporate connection between them and the State of the CEO is and ought to be totally dissolved;

and that as Free and Independent Companies, they have full Power to levy Security, conclude Mergers, contract Alliances, establish Employment,

and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Companies may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

---------------------
Related news in the past year:

Productive Takeovers

Argentina: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1875/1/

Indonesia: http://www.marxist.com/pt-istana-factory-occupied.htm

Nepal: http://neilsnepal.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/somewhere-lenin-is-smiling/

Occupation without Production

Britain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUXFyoLgmRE

Canada: http://www.marxist.com/canadian-workers-occupy-auto-factory.htm

China: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Violent_unrest_rocks_China_as_crisis_hits/articleshow/4059496.cms

Scotland: http://swindonanarchistgroup.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/workers-launch-co-operative-to-run-business-without-bosses/

USA: http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1506/1/

USA: http://www.workersunitedunion.org/content/hartmarx-workers-vote-sit-save-their-jobs-tarp-recipient-wells-fargo-threatens-close-obama-s

USA: http://www.workersunitedunion.org/content/rochester-hickey-freeman-workers-vote-stage-sit-if-bailed-out-bank-attempts-close-company

Resistance to Security Forces

Greece: http://libcom.org/news/bosses-attack-militant-cleaners-syndicalist-vitriolic-acid-athens-protest-march-occupation-

South Korea: http://libcom.org/news/pyeongtaek-strike-continues-south-korea-21062009

freakazoid
2nd July 2009, 21:35
Oh yeah. I have longed believed this. If you look at all the things they wrote yo could easily come to such a conclusion. I would think that Thomas Pain would even be almost a communist. He is certainly one of the more kindly looked upon original founders amongst communists/anarchist

Old Man Diogenes
5th July 2009, 15:38
Excerpts from --------------------------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all women and men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Corporations are instituted among Women and Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the employed. That whenever any Form of Corporation becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Corporation, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Wow, how did America founded on the beliefs turn into what it is today?

Anarkiwi
5th July 2009, 15:41
Wow, how did America founded on the beliefs turn into what it is today?

Like the ussr founded on such great belifes turned into what it was!

Old Man Diogenes
5th July 2009, 15:41
Like the ussr founded on such great belifes turned into what it was!

Good point comrade.

ckaihatsu
5th July 2009, 16:05
Wow, how did America founded on the beliefs turn into what it is today?





Like the ussr founded on such great belifes turned into what it was!


The two, respective revolutions really aren't comparable. The American Revolution was an anti-imperialist / colonial uprising that replaced the rule of the bourgeois abroad with the rule of the bourgeois locally.

The Russian Revolution, well before it decayed after the onslaught of international bourgeois military invasions and pressure, was *far more* progressive for humanity than any anti-imperialist, bourgeois revolution. It was the *only* instance of an organized working class taking power over the industrial machinery that it worked at -- representing an entire country, no less.


Chris



--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

cyu
5th July 2009, 18:34
The American Revolution was an anti-imperialist / colonial uprising that replaced the rule of the bourgeois abroad with the rule of the bourgeois locally.

Exactly - I think George Washington was the richest person in America at the time. Also, I believe Hamilton and Madison were pretty right-wing in terms of trying to prevent "unpropertied" whites from having too much influence in the new "democracy".



Wow, how did America founded on the beliefs turn into what it is today?


Well, that's not an exact copy of the Declaration of Independence - I just replaced the parts referring to government / politicians with corporation / executives.

FreeFocus
5th July 2009, 19:09
The two, respective revolutions really aren't comparable. The American Revolution was an anti-imperialist / colonial uprising that replaced the rule of the bourgeois abroad with the rule of the bourgeois locally.

This sentiment is rather annoying because it's untrue, and furthermore looks at the issue from an oppressor viewpoint. The American "Revolution" gave birth to an imperialist settler state. There's nothing "anti-imperialist" about that.

The Russian Revolution was initially a real victory for humanity, but was hijacked. The two can't be compared.

Revy
5th July 2009, 19:27
This is interesting...

"J.C.D. Clark's essay "British America: What if there had been no American Revolution?" argues that increased representation for the colonists, much like the Scottish and Irish parliaments prior to the Act of Union in 1707, might well have given the Americans a satisfactory level of self-government and made rebellion unnecessary."

Link (http://io9.com/5303446/what-if-july-4th-was-just-another-day?skyline=true&s=x)

Agrippa
5th July 2009, 20:01
This sentiment is rather annoying because it's untrue, and furthermore looks at the issue from an oppressor viewpoint. The American "Revolution" gave birth to an imperialist settler state. There's nothing "anti-imperialist" about that.

Exactly. In fact, from the perspective of the American Indians, whose ethnic autonomy the old European powers (pragmatically and conditionally) supported, the colonists were more imperialistic.

Agrippa
5th July 2009, 20:16
It made me wonder if the American revolutionaries were anarcho-syndicalists without knowing it - or if the early anarcho-syndicalists had taken their inspiration from the American Revolution.

No, and no. Unless I wanted to use this opportunity to take a sectarian swipe at anarcho-syndicalists, which I don't.


Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least


Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of color in the white race, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black that covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, and their own judgment in favor of the whites, declared by the preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Orangutan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? They secrete less by the kidneys and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor. They seem to require less sleep. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. In general their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labor. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to whites; in reason, much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless and anomalous. The Indians will astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, and their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration. In music, they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time. I believe that disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation, and not to any depravity of the moral sense. The man, in whose favor no laws of property exist, probably feels himself less bound to respect those made in favor of others. . . Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken their respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity. The opinion that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them.


"I believe the Indian then to be in body and mind equal to the whiteman," Jefferson wrote to the Marquis de Chastellux. Only their environment needed to be changed to make them fully American in Jefferson's mind. Even though many American Indians lived in villages and many engaged in agriculture, hunting was often still necessary for subsistence. It was this semi-nomadic way of life that led Jefferson and others to consider Indians as "savages." Jefferson believed that if American Indians were made to adopt European-style agriculture and live in European-style towns and villages, then they would quickly "progress" from "savagery" to "civilization" and eventually be equal, in his mind, to white men. As President, Jefferson would try to make these changes a reality. [...] Secondly, Jefferson used the networks created by the treaties to further the program of gradual "civilization." His Federalists predecessors had begun this program, but it was completely in keeping with Jefferson's Enlightenment thinking. Through treaties and commerce, Jefferson hoped to continue to get Native Americans to adopt European agricultural practices, shift to a sedentary way of life, and free up hunting grounds for further white settlement. [...] In a letter to William Henry Harrison, written as the diplomatic crisis leading to the Louisiana Purchase unfolded, Jefferson suggested that if the various Indian nations could be encouraged to purchase goods on credit, they would likely fall into debt, which they could relieve through the sale of lands to the government. The "civilization program" would thus aid the Indians in accordance with Enlightenment principles and at the same time further white interests.


He [the King of Britain] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

All from Jefferson, one of the allegedly more "progressive" Founding Fathers™. Yeah, real fucking anarchists.

ckaihatsu
5th July 2009, 22:41
This sentiment is rather annoying because it's untrue, and furthermore looks at the issue from an oppressor viewpoint. The American "Revolution" gave birth to an imperialist settler state. There's nothing "anti-imperialist" about that.

The Russian Revolution was initially a real victory for humanity, but was hijacked. The two can't be compared.


---





One of the rebellion’s best known figures, the veteran publicist and politician Benjamin Franklin, had written in the 1760s, ‘Happy are we now under the best of kings’.1The thousands of Americans who read his newspaper articles and almanacs agreed with him right up to 1774. In his home colony of Pennsylvania ‘there was no conscious revolutionary tradition’.2 The Virginian leader Thomas Jefferson was still asserting at the beginning of 1776 that Americans had neither ‘wish nor...interest to separate’ from the monarchy.3

How did it come about that in the summer of 1776 representatives of the 13 colonies, assembled at a ‘Continental Congress’, adopted the Declaration of Independence drafted by the same Jefferson, with its assertion that ‘all men are created equal’? It was an overtly revolutionary statement at a time when deference to kings and aristocrats was near-universal in Europe.





The Seven Years War of 1756-63 between Britain and France had centred on control of colonies, especially in North America, and of the trade that went with them. Britain defeated France in the West Indies, took control of Bengal and conquered Canada, laying the basis for a world empire. But there was a mighty bill to be paid for doing so. A logical move for British ministers was to make the American colonists pay some of the costs of the war. After all, they reasoned, the colonies had gained enormously since a French scheme to take control of the Mississippi valley and prevent the colonies expanding westwards had been thwarted.

So Britain imposed a series of taxes on the colonists—a tax on molasses (raw sugar used in making rum) in 1764, a ‘stamp tax’ on a range of transactions in 1765, a Quartering Act which made the colonists pay for the cost of keeping British troops in America, and a tax on imports in 1767.

Each of these caused enormous resentment. People were short of cash at a time of economic depression, and the taxes threatened to damage certain industries. France was no longer a military threat, and the British government wanted the extra income to lower taxes on big landowners in Britain. Above all, the colonists were having to pay taxes for policies in which they had no say.





Capital had stamped its imprint everywhere in the world by 1900. There was scarcely a group of people anywhere whose lives were not being transformed by it—only the ice deserts of Antarctica, the most remote forests of the Amazon and the valleys of highland New Guinea still awaited those apostles of capitalism, the European explorers with their cheap goods, Bibles, germs and hopes of unearned riches.

The impact of capital was not the same everywhere. In many parts of the world it still meant the age-old application of muscle and sweat, now directed towards profit-making for far away capitalists rather than local consumption. But in Western Europe and North America mechanisation spread to ever-wider areas of industry, transport and even agriculture.





The infant capitalism of the late feudal and absolutist periods had grown to adolescence at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. By the early 20th century it was entering maturity in Western Europe and North America. As such, it showed many of the features of the society we live in today. One consequence was that people began to take these features for granted. In the early industrial revolution, people had been shocked by the transition from rural life to industrial labour. They had often looked to the past for some remedy for their ills—as when the Chartists set about a scheme of establishing small farms. The sense of shock had gone by the beginning of the 20th century. People could still be amazed by individual innovations, like the motor car or electric light. But they were not shocked any more by a society built on competition, timekeeping and greed. Capitalist society was all that people knew. Its characteristic forms of behaviour seemed to be ‘human nature’. People no longer realised how bizarre their behaviour would have seemed to their forebears.





Leon Trotsky, writing in Moscow in 1927, drew the lessons from these revolts in what we now call the Third World, building on Marx’s comments on Germany after 1848 and his own analysis of Russia after 1905. Previous commentators had noted the ‘uneven’ development of capitalism—the way it took root in some parts of the world before spreading elsewhere. He shifted the emphasis to ‘combined and uneven development’.146

Trotsky’s argument ran as follows: the rise of capitalism had created a world system with an impact even on the most economically backward regions. It tore apart the traditional ruling classes and undermined the traditional middle classes. Control by colonial ruling classes, foreign capital and competition from industries in already advanced countries cramped the development of native capitalist classes. The middle class looked to break this obstacle to its own advance by fighting for a fully independent national state. But doing so risked stirring into action classes that it feared, for modern transport systems and enclaves of modern industry had created combative, literate working classes and dragged millions of people from the isolation of their villages. Fear of these classes led the ‘national capitalists’ and much of the middle class to forget their hostility to the old ruling classes or colonial powers. Only ‘permanent’ revolution, in which the working class took the initiative and drew behind it the bitterness of the peasantry, could fulfil the national and democratic demands to which the national bourgeoisie paid lip service.

This had happened in Russia in 1917. But it did not happen elsewhere in the Third World. The world’s most powerful imperialism at the end of the world war, Britain, was scarred by the revolts in Ireland, India, China and Egypt, coming at a time of great industrial unrest in Britain itself and revolutionary upheaval across Europe. Yet it kept a colonial empire which had expanded to take in Germany’s colonies in Africa and most of the Ottoman Empire’s Arab possessions. French, Belgian, Dutch, Japanese and an increasingly forthright US imperialism were likewise preserved, adding to the ability of capitalism to re-establish its stability.

FreeFocus
5th July 2009, 23:48
And all of those quotes were to say what, ckaihatsu? As it relates to the Declaration of Independence, the "grievances" of the settlers included taxes and things such as the British "inciting" Native attacks and resistance. In other words, the settlers wanted a chance to establish their own empire, and they did. Take a look at some of the things Jefferson had to say about the coming American empire. Moreover, "all men created equal," when 4 million were enslaved. Good stuff.

You can acknowledge the DOI's place in history as progressive for Europe, and for (privileged) whites, but by no means was it some stupendous human accomplishment, when many groups around the world not only made similar statements, but actually unselfishly and unhypocritically believed and practiced things such as the equality of all people. The American Revolution can't be said to be progressive or "anti-imperialist," at least no more than the 1948 establishment of Israel or Australia's establishment.

ckaihatsu
6th July 2009, 00:01
And all of those quotes were to say what, ckaihatsu?





The American Revolution can't be said to be progressive or "anti-imperialist," at least no more than the 1948 establishment of Israel or Australia's establishment.


'Anti-imperialist' in the colony-uprising sense of the term, *not* 'anti-imperialist' in the sense of an anti-capitalist working class uprising.

Revy
6th July 2009, 00:19
The prevailing sentiment was "No taxation without representation". Which means if they had representation in the British Parliament, that slogan would be meaningless. in fact, the "colonists" (funny how we use that term to describe those that wanted to break away from Britain) were angry because their "rights as Englishmen" were being denied.

Which is not to say that without this taxes issue America might never have become independent. I don't believe it was guided by any kind of social concern (like the French Revolution was). In fact, the French King Louis XVI supported the American side of the Revolutionary War.

Now let's delve deeper into the colonialism aspect:


"The Proclamation of 1763 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Proclamation_of_1763) restricted colonization across the Appalachian Mountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Mountains) as this was to be Indian Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Reserve_%281763%29). Regardless, groups of settlers continued to move west and lay claim to these lands. The proclamation was soon modified and was no longer a hindrance to settlement, but its promulgation and the fact that it had been written without consulting Americans angered the colonists. The Quebec Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act) of 1774 extended Quebec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec)'s boundaries to the Ohio River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_River), shutting out the claims of the thirteen colonies. By then, however, the Americans had little regard for new laws from London; they were drilling militia and organizing for war."
And as for the class issue, John Adams mocked the "absurd democratic notions" expressed in Thomas Paine's Common Sense.

It is a known (and too often ignored) fact that the British offered freedom to black slaves in exchange for enlistment on the British side, and many black slaves took it. After the war had ended, these Black Loyalists fled to Canada (as they were considered "stolen property" by the new American government), as free men and women, not slaves.

I don't see the need to hold onto romantic versions of history. There is no possible way to put a leftist spin on the American Revolution, in any case.

FreeFocus
6th July 2009, 00:33
'Anti-imperialist' in the colony-uprising sense of the term, *not* 'anti-imperialist' in the sense of an anti-capitalist working class uprising.

Yeah, but the thing is, it was a settler population. It isn't the equivalent of true anti-colonial uprisings such as the Mau Mau uprisings or the Malay uprisings.

ckaihatsu
6th July 2009, 20:01
Yeah, but the thing is, it was a settler population. It isn't the equivalent of true anti-colonial uprisings such as the Mau Mau uprisings or the Malay uprisings.


I'd welcome your showing the distinction on this, if you wouldn't mind elaborating.

cyu
6th July 2009, 21:59
No, and no. Unless I wanted to use this opportunity to take a sectarian swipe at anarcho-syndicalists, which I don't.

Actually, the intent wasn't about historical psychology, but rather a rhetorical tool intended to be used on "right-wing" American "patriots".