Was Thomas Jefferson really a Libertarian Socialist? [Archive]

southernmissfan

14th February 2011, 18:59

I can't watch the video at the moment so my points might not be relevant but I will throw my two cents in.

The "Jeffersonian Revolution" was a "revolution" in a more classical (pre-French Revolution) sense, as in the completion of a cycle. It was seen as a renewal of the spirit of '76 as well as '98, which saw the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. It was more about restoration than destruction, as the Jeffersonian Republicans felt the Federalists had diverged from the original spirit of the Revolution. This falls in line with the conservative elements of the American Revolution itself. For the most part, it was about fighting for their rights as Englishmen and continuing the self-government that they had enjoyed in varying degrees since the first colonial charters.

It's hard to characterize Jefferson politically as he was somewhat anachronistic, even in his own time. He wanted an agrarian based republic with a small government, minimal taxation and states' rights. Some characterize him as a champion of the "common man" because of his sympathy for the Whiskey Rebellion, opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts and strong support of political freedoms. But at the same time, he was in many ways a conservative at the time. Of course he lived a life of luxury (running up quite the debt) and was a slave owner. He expressed some anti-slavery opinions but I suppose the politics weren't important enough to affect his own standard of living :rolleyes:. Anyway, as I mentioned, he wanted small government, few taxes and championed the agrarian lifestyle. In this sense, he was conservative for looking backwards, not forwards. The Federalists, while being bastards themselves from our perspective, were in a sense the "progressive" force at the time. They were attempting to construct a modern nation-state and represented the infant bourgeoisie and to some extent the independent farmer, a precursor of both Clay's American System and the Radical Republicans of the Civil War era.

GPDP

14th February 2011, 19:09

It often troubles me when Chomsky says things like these. I like the guy, and hell, he single-handedly turned me toward anarchism (though I have since renounced the label, remaining sympathies nonwithstanding), and by extension socialism. Yet it always puzzled me, even back when I was still reading his works almost religiously, how he tried to draw parallels to the classical liberals and even people like Jefferson. At one point he even makes positive comments about classical conservatism.

My theory is, he's trying to distance himself and the "libertarian socialist" tradition from the Stalinist left, and at the same time appeal to liberals and Americans in general by quoting famous figures on things that, for their time, sounded socialist-esque.

But actions speak louder than words, and the fact that these supposedly early "libertarian socialists" were often part of the ruling class themselves and acted in accordance with its interests IMO invalidates any claim that they were in any way socialist. It's funny, because Chomsky and some of those who follow and defend his line of thought (you know who you are :)) are quick to apply this standard to, say, Stalin, and rightfully so. But what do you expect when liberal sentiments linger on in the left?

Jose Gracchus

15th February 2011, 19:45

I think he tries to point that in many ways old societies were more honest, and no one picked a bone about the reality of society as composed of classes, with competing interests, at the expense of the laboring ones. It is almost alien in the near-opaque propaganda fog of modern First World societies, but they actually acknowledged viewpoints that today are hard to find outside of the "far left". I think he sympathizes with bourgeois and popular pre-industrial revolutionaries in their own time, and also establish that radical democratic and "socialistic" ideas are not some European Marxist alien import, but class struggle organically arose even in the New World.

Also, Chomsky is almost always talking to lay, non militant audiences. Read something like Chomsky on Anarchism where he goes into detail supporting many anti-liberal qualities of the Spanish Revolution and the CNT-FAI, and talks with anarchist militants and organizations. He is a leftist, a fellow traveler of anarcho-syndicalism. This isn't controversial, even Louis Proyect acknowledges this.

A lot of his polemic stresses the fact that modern "liberals" can't even be called liberals in any meaningful sense. How reactionary modern liberalism has become is the greater rhetorical point of much of his foreign policy work, really.

Rafiq

15th February 2011, 20:00

I hate this conservative bullshit that Chomsky always spews out.

Lenina Rosenweg

15th February 2011, 20:27

Thomas Jefferson was a classical liberal. He represented, in a somewhat confused sense, elements of the Southern slave holding elite. For various reasons TJ and the class he represented felt freer to verbally ally themselves with the northern white working class. Jefferson seems at times to be a "radical democrat".

Jefferson was an important figure but he was far from being a socialist.

Jose Gracchus

15th February 2011, 23:24

GPDP

16th February 2011, 05:41

[just listened to clip again]

What are you guys complaining about? Chomsky replied to some loaded right-wing libertarian Misean or something question about laissez-faire capitalism. Then he proceeded to explain something much like we would all say, "Okay, that's nice and academic. In the real world capitalism always develops these 'distortions' and collaborates with the state actively in the so-called 'intrusions into the market'. They are organic to capitalism." He points out that if you actually read Adam Smith, it was a pretty utopian capitalist, pre-industrial work, and it laid out pretty utopian ideals, despite its worship by corporate capitalist apologists today. He says "Yeah, well if somehow some market paradise happened to lead to some kind of egalitarian free society, maybe. But that argument is probably fallacious anyway."

What are you guys whining about? That he doesn't launch into a tirade about materialism and Capital to some kid who probably cobbled together some Mises.org remarks at a public event? :rolleyes:

Nice of you to continue the "you're all purists who can only speak in outdated rhetoric from the 30's" caricature you and a few others have been spreading in other threads whenever the subject of liberals comes about to insult us.

What I'm "whining" about is when Chomsky proceeds to go from those things you paraphrased (which are spot-on), and then proceeds to say those utopian capitalists would be socialists if they were around today.

I don't even know why you went for that jab here, unless you have an instinctive predisposition to feeling butthurt whenever Chomsky is criticized.

Jose Gracchus

16th February 2011, 06:30

"You guys"? Nice to know I've already been fingered as part of some shadowy clique. In any case, it seems to be around here that simply because NGNM or some other kid or liberal just starting to get exposed to the left, and everyone seeps out of the woodwork to give a dozen-to-one ratio of noise/one-liners-to-substantive-replies. I do not understand why the better known the leftist, and the less obscure, the more despised by the sectarian left rank-and-file they are.

Chomsky has said that many classical liberals, if they were to be honest, would have been obliged to be libertarian socialists in a modern industrial setting. What's wrong with that? He does not say that Thomas Jefferson is a libertarian socialist. I just think there's a dog-piling fad going around where everyone jumps and squeals about Chomsky, and what it amounts to 9 times out of 10 is that he does not discuss like he's here. Oh well.

khad

16th February 2011, 06:34

You know, there are plenty of discussion forums for liberals, like huffpo and demo underground. I quite frankly don't understand why *you guys* insist on trying to carve out a space here and then act all butthurt when people are like "wtf."

Jose Gracchus

16th February 2011, 19:20

Maybe actually explaining what you consider "liberal" to mean in definitional terms, and explaining how Chomsky, or me for that matter, am "a liberal". If you think you really have the stones to get me restricted or banned because I'm not really a socialist, try your hand in the CC.

Otherwise, this is just a bunch of bluster and hot-air. Your posturing does not make for a real argument.

Property Is Robbery

16th February 2011, 19:23

He was against private property in it's modern sense but then again so was Adam Smith.

L.A.P.

16th February 2011, 19:48

I actually heard my world history teacher mention today that the founding fathers were more socialist than what the Tea Party Movement would like to think. I would say that the Founding Fathers of the United States were very politically interesting men mainly because anyone could have a certain interpretation of what their political views were due to them never really defining them. I could make arguments that Abraham Lincoln's views resembled that of a Fascist in regards to his views on social classes.

Didn't Jefferson own slaves? if so then no he wasn't.....

He was also the only founding father that wanted to immediately abolish slavery in the Bill of Rights.

the last donut of the night

16th February 2011, 21:54

He was against private property in it's modern sense but then again so was Adam Smith.

Jefferson owned slaves, had a lot of land, and was all for the white settlement of Indian lands. homeboy was definitely not against private property

CynicalIdealist

17th February 2011, 08:36

Chomsky has also said that the Republican Party of Lincoln's time was socialist. :rolleyes:

Edit: 100th post. Yay.

Amphictyonis

17th February 2011, 09:22

Was Thomas Jefferson really some sort of Libertarian Socialist?
No. He was against certian aspects of the new capitalist system he saw forming, banks in particular, but, he lacked the vision to be a socialist. An 'every mans' capitalist he was. He was 'progressive' for his time. Not a socialist though.

Jose Gracchus

17th February 2011, 20:21

Chomsky has also said that the Republican Party of Lincoln's time was socialist. :rolleyes:

Edit: 100th post. Yay.

That's not what he said. He said the position of the Republican Party was that wage labor was terrible and should be superseded. That is a fact. Truth is, you would have to go to the far left today to see questions of labor versus capital treated in the serious manner as Lincoln's writings. Chomsky's pointing out that despite the Brave New World we live in today, once upon a time, more honest (classical) economists and those who read them saw class and production for what it was. Today they just lie about it.

In fact, this suggests Marx: then the bourgeois and some of its strata still had a progressive mission, while today they are entirely and totally reactionary.

Os Cangaceiros

17th February 2011, 22:59

Chomsky has also said that the Republican Party of Lincoln's time was socialist. :rolleyes:

Edit: 100th post. Yay.

You've never heard of the so-called "Red Republicans"?

LuÃs Henrique

20th February 2011, 13:49

oh and lets not forget the fact Jefferson said homosexuals and zoophiliacs should be castrated...

This settles the question. Thomas Jefferson was a Stalinist. :rolleyes:

History, people, history.

Luís Henrique

Tim Finnegan

20th February 2011, 22:05

If I'm properly familiar with the argument he's making- which I've heard him and others make before- then what he's suggesting is that the logical conclusion of the principals endorsed by early liberals when applied to a industrial, capitalist society- rather than to the pre-industrial, quasi-capitalist society in which they lived- is a form of libertarian socialism. Rudolph Rocker described the "utopian capitalism" which The Inform Candidate mentions, as having been "smashed upon the rocks of industrial capitalism", and argues for libertarian socialism as the reconstitution of liberalism in a form relevant to the modern world.

Jose Gracchus

21st February 2011, 03:38

Which makes sense, as Rocker was one of Chomsky's strongest political influences when he was young.

Queercommie Girl

21st February 2011, 11:59

This settles the question. Thomas Jefferson was a Stalinist. :rolleyes:

History, people, history.

Luís Henrique

So you think queerphobia doesn't really matter right?

Before you say "oh everyone in those days were queerphobic...", let me tell you that is not actually factually true. The native American tribes were not systematically queerphobic, why couldn't Jefferson learn from them, instead of enslaving and killing them? :rolleyes:

LuÃs Henrique

21st February 2011, 13:14

So you think queerphobia doesn't really matter right?

Before you say "oh everyone in those days were queerphobic...", let me tell you that is not actually factually true. The native American tribes were not systematically queerphobic, why couldn't Jefferson learn from them, instead of enslaving and killing them? :rolleyes:

Far from me to defend Jefferson. Trying to make him fit into 21st century categories is however useless, because his reasoning was not informed by 21st century public debate.

He was a liberal of his times (in which liberalism and support for slavery weren't mutually exclusive); he wasn't a socialist, if for no other reason, because his times were times when "socialism" didn't exist at all.

Edit: if I correctly understand what Tim Finnegan wrote, Chomsky's argument is something like, "if Jefferson was alive today, he would be a socialist". This may well be, Jefferson was obviously intelligent and compassionate. But it belongs better in a discussion among Kardeckists than in a discussion among socialists.

Luís Henrique

Queercommie Girl

21st February 2011, 14:31

Far from me to defend Jefferson. Trying to make him fit into 21st century categories is however useless, because his reasoning was not informed by 21st century public debate.

Queer rights isn't a "21st century category" though, certainly not to the native Americans.

He was a liberal of his times (in which liberalism and support for slavery weren't mutually exclusive); he wasn't a socialist, if for no other reason, because his times were times when "socialism" didn't exist at all.
"Socialism" didn't exist, but anti-slavery ideologies did.

Edit: if I correctly understand what Tim Finnegan wrote, Chomsky's argument is something like, "if Jefferson was alive today, he would be a socialist". This may well be, Jefferson was obviously intelligent and compassionate. But it belongs better in a discussion among Kardeckists than in a discussion among socialists.

Luís Henrique
For Marxists, such "historical what-ifs" are totally useless and serve no constructive purpose, but would actually serve a negative purpose as ideological ammunition for reactionaries who wish to defend the creators of the bourgeois order by trying to paint them as somehow "proto-socialist".

This is just like what DNZ here on RevLeft is saying about Julius Caesar - trying to restore some kind of obsolete "hero" from a bygone age as a kind of "symbolic inspiration" for socialism today. (Or like how some socialists in China like to praise Emperor Qin Shihuang, the first feudal dictator in China who initiated a radical break with slavery) Jefferson frankly isn't much better than Caesar in many ways. At least Caesar freed one-third of all the slaves in Italy in his day.

It's not the job of Marxists to try to paint slavelord, feudal and bourgeois leaders like Julius Caesar, Emperor Qin Shihuang or Thomas Jefferson in a morally positive light, such as labelling them as "intelligent and compassionate". Try to tell that to the slaves in Gaul, the Confucian scholars buried alive in Qin, or the native Americans massacred in America.

For Marxists, studying history only has an objective scientific interest, in the sense of economics in a completely amoral manner, it has no moral or normative value what-so-ever, because while past systems may have improved productivity objectively at various points, they offer absolutely no inspiration to socialists in terms of what a progressive productive relation should be like.

S.Artesian

21st February 2011, 14:40

He was against private property in it's modern sense but then again so was Adam Smith.

He was against private property in what sense? He was distrustful and suspicious of urban capital, just as he was distrustful and suspicious of anything urban, including urban workers, urban poor.

He thought "democracy" was best served by small rural producers, which of course did not prevent him from owning slaves, protecting slavery, extending slavery, or leaving the Haitian revolution to the tender mercies of Napoleon.

Tim Finnegan

21st February 2011, 19:48

(Or like how some socialists in China like to praise Emperor Qin Shihuang, the first feudal dictator in China who initiated a radical break with slavery)
I wish the Chinese would make up their mind about which of the Hundred Schools' legacy they claim! One minute they're after the egalitarianism of the Mohists, the next the statism of the Legalists, the next the traditionalism of the Confucianism... Trying to keep track would drive you insane! :bored:

It's not the job of Marxists to try to paint slavelord, feudal and bourgeois leaders like Julius Caesar, Emperor Qin Shihuang or Thomas Jefferson in a morally positive light, such as labelling them as "intelligent and compassionate". Try to tell that to the slaves in Gaul, the Confucian scholars buried alive in Qin, or the native Americans massacred in America.

For Marxists, studying history only has an objective scientific interest, in the sense of economics in a completely amoral manner, it has no moral or normative value what-so-ever, because while past systems may have improved productivity objectively at various points, they offer absolutely no inspiration to socialists in terms of what a progressive productive relation should be like.
This is true; however, it should be clarified that Chomsky's argument is not intended either as a vindication of Jefferson or as an argument from authority, but a dispassionate claim that the moral and philosophical principals of radical liberalism, when applied to a world which has seen the growth of industrial capitalism, would lead one to the path of libertarian socialism. It's not meant as a defence of socialism, but as a refutation of the incessant claims by American reactionaries that they are carrying out the will of "Founding Fathers" (a group for which I've never been able to find a solid definition beyond "all white, all male, and almost entirely upper class).

S.Artesian

21st February 2011, 21:37

This is true; however, it should be clarified that Chomsky's argument is not intended either as a vindication of Jefferson or as an argument from authority, but a dispassionate claim that the moral and philosophical principals of radical liberalism, when applied to a world which has seen the growth of industrial capitalism, would lead one to the path of libertarian socialism. It's not meant as a defence of socialism, but as a refutation of the incessant claims by American reactionaries that they are carrying out the will of "Founding Fathers" (a group for which I've never been able to find a solid definition beyond "all white, all male, and almost entirely upper class).

Except Chomsky's argument is ahistorical horseshit-- there are no material grounds for applying "radical liberalism" to industrial capitalism. "Radical liberalism" had everything to do with establishing the sovereignty of bourgeois property and its "right" to access "free" [as in dispossessed] labor EDIT: in a period of conflict with its feudal, or landed antecedents .

EDIT: Removed irrelevant comment on Chomsky.

Our task isn't to "recuperate" the "founding fathers" for socialism. Our task is the overthrow of the descendants of the founding fathers, and the social system they founded.

S.Artesian

21st February 2011, 21:48

Far from me to defend Jefferson. Trying to make him fit into 21st century categories is however useless, because his reasoning was not informed by 21st century public debate.

He was a liberal of his times (in which liberalism and support for slavery weren't mutually exclusive); he wasn't a socialist, if for no other reason, because his times were times when "socialism" didn't exist at all.

Edit: if I correctly understand what Tim Finnegan wrote, Chomsky's argument is something like, "if Jefferson was alive today, he would be a socialist". This may well be, Jefferson was obviously intelligent and compassionate. But it belongs better in a discussion among Kardeckists than in a discussion among socialists.

Luís Henrique

He was a slaveholder and a rapist-- to say identifying him for what he was is useless because his "reasoning" was not informed by 21st century knowledge is a bit disingenuous. His reasoning was formed in a period when slavery was opposed by many, not the least of whom where the slaves themselves-- his presidency was coincident with the revolution in Haiti.

His reasoning was informed enough to support the prohibition of the slave trade, as long as it was 20 years down the road; but apparently that's not supposed to mean he knew what barbarism was at the base and the crown of slavery?

His reasoning was formed by his material interests, his relation to his property. That means by his relation to slavery.

And technically, notions of utopian socialism did exist during Jefferson's times. Not to mention radical abolitionism, radical egalitarianism.

He, Jefferson, is a thoroughly unremarkable, except in his gross hypocrisy, figure.

Queercommie Girl

21st February 2011, 22:20

I wish the Chinese would make up their mind about which of the Hundred Schools' legacy they claim! One minute they're after the egalitarianism of the Mohists, the next the statism of the Legalists, the next the traditionalism of the Confucianism... Trying to keep track would drive you insane! :bored:

I guess I could say the same thing about all of your bullshit Western philosophies, from your slave-hoarding "founding fathers" to the theological authorities of your ridiculous Christian church.

Objectively Mozi's egalitarianism is probably the closest to socialism, since he originally came from the lower layers of Zhou Dynasty society, unlike elitists such as Caesar and Jefferson.

This is true; however, it should be clarified that Chomsky's argument is not intended either as a vindication of Jefferson or as an argument from authority, but a dispassionate claim that the moral and philosophical principals of radical liberalism, when applied to a world which has seen the growth of industrial capitalism, would lead one to the path of libertarian socialism. It's not meant as a defence of socialism, but as a refutation of the incessant claims by American reactionaries that they are carrying out the will of "Founding Fathers" (a group for which I've never been able to find a solid definition beyond "all white, all male, and almost entirely upper class).There is no objective reason to even believe that "had Jefferson's ideals being applied to the modern world, it would definitely have led to libertarian socialism". It's a hypothesis that can never be proven.

Nor is there any need for socialists to "compete with" right-wing reactionaries for the "interpretative rights" on the "founding fathers".

gorillafuck

21st February 2011, 22:35

No. He was against certian aspects of the new capitalist system he saw forming, banks in particular, but, he lacked the vision to be a socialist. An 'every mans' capitalist he was. He was 'progressive' for his time. Not a socialist though.He was not even "progressive for his time".

He wanted an agrarian slave economy. He was not a libertarian socialist.

Tim Finnegan

21st February 2011, 22:53

Except Chomsky's argument is ahistorical horseshit-- there are no material grounds for applying "radical liberalism" to industrial capitalism. "Radical liberalism" had everything to do with establishing the sovereignty of bourgeois property and its "right" to access "free" [as in dispossessed] labor.
While it's certainly true that the historical role played by liberalism was to further the cause of the bourgeoisie, that does not mean that is without value. Chomsky's argument is that the core of Enlightenment liberalism is sound, but that the ideas built around that core- private property being part of the latter, and not the former- needs redeveloping from a modern, fuller perspective, and that such a redevelopment leads one to libertarian socialism. Human imagination does play a role in the shaping of history, after all; let's not sink into determinism.

Our task isn't to "recuperate" the "founding fathers" for socialism. Our task is the overthrow of the descendants of the founding fathers, and the social system they founded.Again, his argument was not one aimed at rehabilitating the "founding fathers", or any other enlightenment liberals- their records generally speak for themselves. Rather, his argument was that libertarian socialism, rather than, neoliberalism, neo-conservatism or laissez faire producerism ("libertarianism", I believe its advocates habitually mislabel it) offers the best contemporary expression of the principles established by Enlightenment "proto-libertarians", you might say.

I guess I could say the same thing about all of your bullshit Western philosophies, from your slave-hoarding "founding fathers" to the theological authorities of your ridiculous Christian church.
Oh, I meant no offence. My fault for using "Chinese" in place of "government of the People's Republic of China"; a Eurocentric gaff for which I can only apologise.

Objectively Mozi's egalitarianism is probably the closest to socialism, since he originally came from the lower layers of Zhou Dynasty society, unlike elitists such as Caesar and Jefferson.Yeah, Mozi has pretty interesting stuff. I'd say "he was ahead of his time", but, really, it may simply be that the rest of the world is two thousand years behind. ;)

There is no objective reason to even believe that "had Jefferson's ideals being applied to the modern world, it would definitely have led to libertarian socialism". It's a hypothesis that can never be proven.Well, yes, but that wasn't what Chomsky is arguing; his claim is that the values of Enlightenment libertarianism, when redeveloped appropriately for the modern world, lead one to a form of libertarian socialism. "Jefferson", whom Chomsky cheerfully identities as a hypocrite and an elitist, is really somewhat peripheral to the whole business, beyond acting as an easily name-dropped "Generic Enlightenment Thinker" for Westerners of limited understanding.

Nor is there any need for socialists to "compete with" right-wing reactionaries for the "interpretative rights" on the "founding fathers".The point was not to "compete" for any legacy- Chomsky no more than anyone, given his scathing criticism of the "Founding Fathers" and their thoroughly gentrified programs- but, rather, to challenge the claim that neoliberalism, neo-conservativism, "libertarianism", etc. are the "heirs" of the Enlightenment libertarian tradition, and so represent the greatest human liberty.

Queercommie Girl

21st February 2011, 23:27

While it's certainly true that the historical role played by liberalism was to further the cause of the bourgeoisie, that does not mean that is without value. Chomsky's argument is that the core of Enlightenment liberalism is sound, but that the ideas built around that core- private property being part of the latter, and not the former- needs redeveloping from a modern, fuller perspective, and that such a redevelopment leads one to libertarian socialism. Human imagination does play a role in the shaping of history, after all; let's not sink into determinism.

Again, his argument was not one aimed at rehabilitating the "founding fathers", or any other enlightenment liberals- their records generally speak for themselves. Rather, his argument was that libertarian socialism, rather than, neoliberalism, neo-conservatism or laissez faire producerism ("libertarianism", I believe its advocates habitually mislabel it) offers the best contemporary expression of the principles established by Enlightenment "proto-libertarians", you might say.

But I think the important thing for socialists to realise is that Marxism itself already has "inherited" the best elements in the "ideals of freedom" etc. Marx was very clear about communism being the "free association of free producers" and the path of human history being one from "the realm of necessities" to "the realm of freedom". The "ideals of genuine freedom" for all workers are already inherent in Marxism.

Oh, I meant no offence. My fault for using "Chinese" in place of "government of the People's Republic of China"; a Eurocentric gaff for which I can only apologise.
Ok. I wasn't accusing you for being "Western-centric" or "racist" per se, I was just stating that one shouldn't apply a "double standard" to China and the West.

Yeah, Mozi has pretty interesting stuff. I'd say "he was ahead of his time", but, really, it may simply be that the rest of the world is two thousand years behind. ;)
But let's not overstate it and say Mozi was like a "direct percursor" to modern socialism. Mozi was a radical reformist in his day, in the ancient slavery society of the Zhou Dynasty, and he very explicitly believed in complete economic egalitarianism. This very fact makes him more progressive than the likes of Caesar or even Gracchus in ancient Rome. But Mozi wasn't a revolutionary rebel like Spartacus. (Though Spartacus had shortcomings too, since he never had any clear idea of what the "new world" after slavery would be like, he just wanted to escape away)

Well, yes, but that wasn't what Chomsky is arguing; his claim is that the values of Enlightenment libertarianism, when redeveloped appropriately for the modern world, lead one to a form of libertarian socialism. "Jefferson", whom Chomsky cheerfully identities as a hypocrite and an elitist, is really somewhat peripheral to the whole business, beyond acting as an easily name-dropped "Generic Enlightenment Thinker" for Westerners of limited understanding.

The point was not to "compete" for any legacy- Chomsky no more than anyone, given his scathing criticism of the "Founding Fathers" and their thoroughly gentrified programs- but, rather, to challenge the claim that neoliberalism, neo-conservativism, "libertarianism", etc. are the "heirs" of the Enlightenment libertarian tradition, and so represent the greatest human liberty.My main point in this thread is not to directly criticise Chomsky. Chomsky has made some good contributions to modern socialism, though some of his views are rather flawed too.

My main point here is simply to respond to some of the points raised by the other posters, many of whom I doubt even Chomsky himself would agree with, even though they claim to be "on his side" in the debate.

Tim Finnegan

21st February 2011, 23:46

But I think the important thing for socialists to realise is that Marxism itself already has "inherited" the best elements in the "ideals of freedom" etc. Marx was very clear about communism being the "free association of free producers" and the path of human history being one from "the realm of necessities" to "the realm of freedom". The "ideals of genuine freedom" for all workers are already inherent in Marxism.
Oh, I would agree entirely. I'm simply trying to clarify Chomsky's arguments- and, to his credit, he includes libertarian or left Marxist currents under the label of "libertarian socialism". (Of course, exactly which current is the best form of Marxism- if there is a single "best", of which I am a little sceptical- is another discussion.)

Ok. I wasn't accusing you for being "Western-centric" or "racist" per se, I was just stating that one shouldn't apply a "double standard" to China and the West.
Very true.

But let's not overstate it and say Mozi was like a "direct percursor" to modern socialism. Mozi was a radical reformist in his day, in the ancient slavery society of the Zhou Dynasty, and he very explicitly believed in complete economic egalitarianism. This very fact makes him more progressive than the likes of Caesar or even Gracchus in ancient Rome. But Mozi wasn't a revolutionary rebel like Spartacus. (Though Spartacus had shortcomings too, since he never had any clear idea of what the "new world" after slavery would be like, he just wanted to escape away)
Oh, certainly. Aside from anything else, his presumption of authoritarian hierarchies dates his thought considerably. I just can't help but think that, for the great bulk of the world's population, a Mohist society would still be leaps and bounds above their current lamentable state of affairs.

My main point in this thread is not to directly criticise Chomsky. Chomsky has made some good contributions to modern socialism, though some of his views are rather flawed too.

My main point here is simply to respond to some of the points raised by other posters, many of whom I doubt even Chomsky himself would agree with, even though they claim to be "on his side" in the debate.
Yes, I think I've got a bit side-tracked talking about Chomsky here. Straying from the original topic somewhat...

LuÃs Henrique

21st February 2011, 23:53

Queer rights isn't a "21st century category" though, certainly not to the native Americans.

I doubt 18th century native Americans reasoned in terms of "rights", much less in terms of "queer rights", but anyway Jefferson wasn't native American. How many colonists at that time would "learn from native Americans" instead of taking it for granted that they should be enslaved or exterminated?

"Socialism" didn't exist, but anti-slavery ideologies did.

Well the claim wasn't that Jefferson was anti-slavery, but that he was a (proto?-)socialist, or that he would be one if he lived today.

For Marxists, such "historical what-ifs" are totally useless and serve no constructive purpose

That's exactly the point. Thence, "history, people, history".

but would actually serve a negative purpose as ideological ammunition for reactionaries who wish to defend the creators of the bourgeois order by trying to paint them as somehow "proto-socialist".

Yes, of course. I don't think I ever defended anything opposed to that, did I?

It's not the job of Marxists to try to paint slavelord, feudal and bourgeois leaders like Julius Caesar, Emperor Qin Shihuang or Thomas Jefferson in a morally positive light, such as labelling them as "intelligent and compassionate".

Intelligence and compassion don't count for much, do they? What is important is what people effectively did. In Jefferson's case, it involves his participation in the American Revolution, and his political positions concerning the issues in his day (slavery, industrialisation, republic/monarchy, etc), not his positions concerning issues that weren't within the political agenda.

In fact, "if Jefferson lived today", unless we adhere to some essentialist ideology of "soul" is a contradiction in terms; "if Jefferson lived today" he wouldn't be Jefferson, he would be a different person. Kinda "what if Hitler was raised by Orthodox Jews, he wouldn't be an antisemite".

For Marxists, studying history only has an objective scientific interest, in the sense of economics in a completely amoral manner, it has no moral or normative value what-so-ever, because while past systems may have improved productivity objectively at various points, they offer absolutely no inspiration to socialists in terms of what a progressive productive relation should be like.

Well, you seem to be injecting a lot of morals in your study of history, for someone who believes that it shouldn't have no moral or normative value at all. From a Marxist point of view, Jefferson was what he did, and what he did was more or less in sintony with the objective tasks of his time - establishing a capitalism mode of production, and a bourgeois dictatorship to drive it. To the point that he was conducive to that, he was progressive; to the extent that he was an obstacle to it, he was reactionary. Isn't it like that?

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

22nd February 2011, 00:13

He was a slaveholder and a rapist-- to say identifying him for what he was is useless because his "reasoning" was not informed by 21st century knowledge is a bit disingenuous. His reasoning was formed in a period when slavery was opposed by many, not the least of whom where the slaves themselves-- his presidency was coincident with the revolution in Haiti.

Well, his position on slavery certainly is part of what should be debated if we are going to discuss his historic importance. Not his supposed position on socialism if he was alive today.

If he was against the abolition of slavery, he evidently was a reactionary, even in the terms of his own times.

His reasoning was informed enough to support the prohibition of the slave trade, as long as it was 20 years down the road; but apparently that's not supposed to mean he knew what barbarism was at the base and the crown of slavery?

Many slaveholders knew the system was barbaric; many of them devised schemes to abolish slavery "in proper time" (perhaps in a sufficient distant future that they themselves wouldn't lose property in the process). Most just thought the system was natural or unavoidable, or even "good for the slaves, that could be by these means brought into Christianism/civilisation". Knowing it was barbaric seldom stopped them from exploiting slave labour. As a class, they were unable to do anything else than perpetuating slavery.

His reasoning was formed by his material interests, his relation to his property. That means by his relation to slavery.

Well, of course.

And technically, notions of utopian socialism did exist during Jefferson's times.

Ah, certainly. Those however were never incompatible with the most extraordinary views about non-Whites, females, or homosexuals. Or with absolute lack of democracy. Or with the idea of benevolent lords. Etc.

Not to mention radical abolitionism, radical egalitarianism.

Sure. But the OP is about whether he was a socialist, or would be one if he was alive today. He wasn't, and couldn't be (unless he was a member of a "socialist" cult of the time, most of which we, 21st century socialists, would have a lot of trouble recognising as socialist). He might be one if he was alive today, but then, the premise is absurd anyway - he couldn't be alive today.

He, Jefferson, is a thoroughly unremarkable, except in his gross hypocrisy, figure.

Well, I am certainly not a specialist in Jefferson, nor am I really interested in defending him particularly. My point is entirely different: that 18th century characters cannot be judged by 21 century standards; this is a-historical and consequently wrong. Thence Chomsky is talking nonsence in trying to portray Jefferson as a socialist or "someone who would be socialist if he lived among us"; and so are those who claim that he could not be a socialist because he wanted to castrate homosexuals. Both positions are a-historic, and consequently inane.

Luís Henrique

S.Artesian

22nd February 2011, 00:22

Saying Jefferson isn't, wasn't and couldn't be a socialist is one thing.

Saying his "philosophy" or his "liberalism" would have led him to socialism is something else.

Saying we can't judge his "philosophy" or his "liberalism" based on his actual material, economic activity because that would be judging him by "21st century standards" is another something else.

And it's that last assertion with which I disagree.

Tim Finnegan

22nd February 2011, 00:22

Thence Chomsky is talking nonsence in trying to portray Jefferson as a socialist or "someone who would be socialist if he lived among us"...
But that isn't actually what Chomsky is arguing; his claim is that the values of enlightenment liberalism, if redeveloped to produce a body of thought appropriate to an industrial capitalist society, would leave you with a form of libertarian socialism; that, in fact, libertarian socialism represents such such a redevelopment. When he suggests that Smith and Jefferson would have opposed modern industrial capitalism, he is not suggesting that they were therefore socialists, but that anyone claiming to represent their legacy must be a socialist- the exact opposite of what the Tea Party et al. claim.

S.Artesian

22nd February 2011, 00:28

But that isn't actually what Chomsky is arguing; his claim is that the values of enlightenment liberalism, if redeveloped to produce a body of thought appropriate to an industrial capitalist society, would leave you with a form of libertarian socialism; that, in fact, libertarian socialism represents such such a redevelopment. When he suggests that Smith and Jefferson would have opposed modern industrial capitalism, he is not suggesting that they were therefore socialists, but that anyone claiming to represent their legacy must be a socialist- the exact opposite of what the Tea Party et al. claim.

And that is exactly what is so much crap, pardon the expression, in Chomsky's arguments-- as if there's a "natural" continuum, a linear progressiveness inherent, internal, to enlightenment liberalism, when in fact there is no such thing. It's liberalism is historically, materially specific. The liberalism that is perceived is a liberalism of property; and easily, and rapidly, becomes an argument for the conservation of that property as the embodiment of rationality, enlightenment.

Or....as Hegel put it, Liberalism is the philosophy that capitulates to the world of the concrete.

Tim Finnegan

22nd February 2011, 00:39

And that is exactly what is so much crap, pardon the expression, in Chomsky's arguments-- as if there's a "natural" continuum, a linear progressiveness inherent, internal, to enlightenment liberalism, when in fact there is no such thing. It's liberalism is historically, materially specific. The liberalism that is perceived is a liberalism of property; and easily, and rapidly, becomes an argument for the conservation of that property as the embodiment of rationality, enlightenment.

Or....as Hegel put it, Liberalism is the philosophy that capitulates to the world of the concrete.
Chomsky wasn't arguing for some natural evolution of liberalism into libertarian socialism, but, rather, that the fundamental values espoused by early liberal philosophers can only be realised in the era of industrial capitalism by libertarian socialism (Let's not allow the historical role of liberalism to obscure it's philosophical basis, because the two are quite distinct.) Just as 18th century radicals thought that private property was a necessary condition of general liberty, so Chomsky argues that the abolition of private property is a similarly necessary condition of general liberty; in both cases, the view is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
His references to Jefferson are not to present him as a precursor to libertarian socialism- if you read his essays on the topic, such a notion is explicitly dismissed- but to illustrate the historical baselessness of the claim that modern industrial capitalism is the fulfilment of his ambitions.

LuÃs Henrique

22nd February 2011, 01:25

Saying Jefferson isn't, wasn't and couldn't be a socialist is one thing.

Which I agree with.

Saying his "philosophy" or his "liberalism" would have led him to socialism is something else.

That seems to be Chomsky's argument. It is false; his liberalism leads to... liberalism. Modified, of course, by historical issues; less complacent towards slavery, more open to issues like homosexuality or feminism - and more entrenched in its defence of private property.

Saying we can't judge his "philosophy" or his "liberalism" based on his actual material, economic activity because that would be judging him by "21st century standards" is another something else.

It is to judge him by 21st standards to point out that he was for the castration of homosexuals, or that he wasn't against the genocide of native Americans. Those were commonplace liberal positions at Jefferson's times, not positions that would make him iliberal or conservative.

Liberalism, of course, has always been an ideology, or "philosophy", tied to a class - the bourgeoisie. How does Chomsky arrive to the idea that its logical conclusion is socialism? I fear this is because Chomsky's own "socialism" is based in the idea that the development of capitalism after Jefferson's times was not congenial to capitalism, but somehow a "deviation" or at least someghing unessencial to capitalism, as if it could have developed in a different way.

Luís Henrique

S.Artesian

22nd February 2011, 01:30

Chomsky wasn't arguing for some natural evolution of liberalism into libertarian socialism, but, rather, that the fundamental values espoused by early liberal philosophers can only be realised in the era of industrial capitalism by libertarian socialism (Let's not allow the historical role of liberalism to obscure it's philosophical basis, because the two are quite distinct.) Just as 18th century radicals thought that private property was a necessary condition of general liberty, so Chomsky argues that the abolition of private property is a similarly necessary condition of general liberty; in both cases, the view is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
His references to Jefferson are not to present him as a precursor to libertarian socialism- if you read his essays on the topic, such a notion is explicitly dismissed- but to illustrate the historical baselessness of the claim that modern industrial capitalism is the fulfilment of his ambitions.

Comrade, all you've done is restate what I stated, leaving out the word "natural"-- exactly what is the difference between "evolution of liberalism into libertarian socialism" and the "fundamental values espoused by early liberal philosophers can be realized....by libertarian socialism"?

Yeah 18th century radical thought that private bourgeois property was fundamental to liberty, but that's because there notion of freedom and liberty is determined by the access to free labor. That notion does not become, in and of itself, the notion that the abolition of private property is now the necessary condition to freedom.

What transpires with the "evolution" of the liberal notion is that its essential nature, its core, its unfreedom, is exposed: that its "freedom" is actually a condition of unfreedom of social labor. Chomsky argues for a continuum... supposedly realizing the "human essence" of enlightenment liberalism.

Marx takes the exact opposite view-- analyzing the prospects for the immanent discontinuity, disruption, and the need to discount, and overthrow, this false rationality that parades itself around as "enlightenment" which is so enlightened it requires slavery in its very definition and organization of freedom.

Jefferson was no admirer of industrial capitalism-- that's all we need to tell that batshit crazy Cato Institute or AEI-- he professed his love for agrarian democracy, small rural producers, which of course was the ideological cover for his slaveholders' republic.

Jefferson, like Locke was a fraud, and in being a fraud, each exhibits the highest degree of liberal enlightenment.

LuÃs Henrique

22nd February 2011, 01:38

But that isn't actually what Chomsky is arguing; his claim is that the values of enlightenment liberalism, if redeveloped to produce a body of thought appropriate to an industrial capitalist society, would leave you with a form of libertarian socialism; that, in fact, libertarian socialism represents such such a redevelopment.

This is counter-factual; the values of enlightenment, when developed to produce a body of thought appropriate to an industrial capitalist society, split. Enlightenment liberalism existed to justify and glorify capitalism as it existed at that time. Capitalism changed; thence the justification and glorification of capitalism today needs adjustments, that imply new forms of liberalism (not all those adjustments are regressive, but the core one is: the realisation that competition leads to monopoly, and so that the tradional liberal oppostion to monopoly is no longer possible). On the other hand, some of the few enlightenment liberal positions that must be abandoned in order to support capitalism as it is today are compatible with a critique of capitalism. But there is no real reason to believe that Marxism is a more coherent continuation to enlightenment liberalism than, for instance, the Austrian school.

When he suggests that Smith and Jefferson would have opposed modern industrial capitalism, he is not suggesting that they were therefore socialists, but that anyone claiming to represent their legacy must be a socialist- the exact opposite of what the Tea Party et al. claim.

Yes, herein the problem. This claim is false, and anyway unlikely to sway the position of "conservative" liberals, "libertarians", neoliberals, etc.

Luís Henrique

Tim Finnegan

22nd February 2011, 02:08

Comrade, all you've done is restate what I stated, leaving out the word "natural"-- exactly what is the difference between "evolution of liberalism into libertarian socialism" and the "fundamental values espoused by early liberal philosophers can be realized....by libertarian socialism"?
I think this may be a point of miscommunication: the idea you- quite rightly- scorn is one of natural, inevitable evolution, while what Chomsky argues for is a concious reconstruction. He does not say "liberalism was all well and good in it's day, but now let's have something better", but, rather "these are the characteristics of liberalism which doomed it to failure in an industrial capitalist society; let us take the philosophical groundwork provided by the enlightenment, then, and construct something useful from it". It isn't simply building an extension upon a house, but tearing the house down and using the land to build a new and more useful structure.

This is counter-factual; the values of enlightenment, when developed to produce a body of thought appropriate to an industrial capitalist society, split. Enlightenment liberalism existed to justify and glorify capitalism as it existed at that time. Capitalism changed; thence the justification and glorification of capitalism today needs adjustments, that imply new forms of liberalism (not all those adjustments are regressive, but the core one is: the realisation that competition leads to monopoly, and so that the tradional liberal oppostion to monopoly is no longer possible). On the other hand, some of the few enlightenment liberal positions that must be abandoned in order to support capitalism as it is today are compatible with a critique of capitalism. But there is no real reason to believe that Marxism is a more coherent continuation to enlightenment liberalism than, for instance, the Austrian school.
That sounds rather deterministic; while liberalism certainly served to propagate capitalism, and was allowed and able to develop because it did so, that does not mean that those philosophers who advocated it were only capable of developing ideas which served the bourgeoisie. They were not simply robotic agents of history; Marx is quite explicit, after all, that people have as much effect on the course of history as it does on them.

Again, what Chomsky (and perhaps more importantly, his predecessors such as Rocker) argued was not that libertarian socialism represents an evolution of liberalism, but that to take the principles upon which liberalism is built and apply them to the modern industrial world will produce libertarian socialism. It isn't intend to lay claim to any grand legacy- you only need to read Chomsky's scathing criticism of the Founding Fathers to know it's not a legacy he would be interested in- but a dispassionate observation.

Yes, herein the problem. This claim is false, and anyway unlikely to sway the position of "conservative" liberals, "libertarians", neoliberals, etc.Of course not, but when was it ever the goal of socialists to sway reactionary zealots? It's the undecided who matter.

Jose Gracchus

22nd February 2011, 02:44

S.Artesian

22nd February 2011, 03:05

Jesus people. Chomsky is talking on videos and interviews where they will be viewed by lay and left-liberal audiences. He's trying to point out (and if you follow these arguments, he repeatedly revisits this point in particular) that socialism and communism are not intrinsically "European" and "foreign" ideas. Rather, just as Marx's critique of political economy followed from the much more reasonable and realistic looks by classical political economy into class and productive relations (something which is papered over and completely avoided in contemporary ideology), ditto for many American historical figures from a few of the capitalist-critical Founding Fathers and down to the Abolitionist movement and the early Republicans. He also frequently cites the case of early American labor history, labor press, the Lowell Mill Girls. His point is that out of social unrest and struggle and basic principles, socialism naturally presents itself.

I'm afraid simply preaching Marx and materialism I think its a losing method, especially with a mass/lay audience. Furthermore, Chomsky is an anarchist and so he does not entirely accept Marx's critique of political economy and historical materialism. He rejects dialectical materialism (he is himself part of the analytic philosophical school, not the continental). He does not believe there are such things as historical "laws" and "stages" in the abstract. He thinks a lot of this rhetoric has been evacuated of substantive content and scientific analytical value. I must say I agree. But I do not think the baby should go out with the bathwater. I just don't think Chomsky is a big sectarian partisan and theory heavy, and the "professional left" like us just has trouble getting along with someone who does not wade knee deep in our cultural cues and choices of debate quibbling.

Maybe arguing like DNZ-RED DAVE quibble of the day is what socialism is all about. Personally, I'm glad he's just helping raise consciousness and break down the enormous barriers of deceit and obfuscation.

I don't know comrade, I listened to it again, he starts off by talking about the "real Adam Smith" and the "real Thomas Jefferson." And that's where Chomsky's analysis is so much weaker than a materialist analysis, because a materialist analysis would simply point out that Jefferson was a slaveholder and a rapist, and that what Chomsky is promoting is an illustory Jefferson... and worse.

He's promoting confusion and almost a nostalgia for something that not only never existed, "real conservatism" "real libertarianism" but exists as an ideological shell to obscure the historical content of both a Jefferson and a Smith.

That's my objection. He's talking to lay people? Well, I don't know what the difference is between lay people and professionals here, but if the lay people can make sense of his differentiation of the "real Smith" the "real conservatism" from the advertised Smith and the advertised conservatism, then they are certainly capable of grasping the material reality, the material connections to property behind Smith and Jefferson.

Marx's critique of political economy did not simply "follow" from "realistic looks" by those political economists of the bourgeoisie-- his critique followed from his engagement with Hegel, that old power of negation, and more importantly, it followed from actual immersion in the revolutionary upheavals of 1848. Capital follows in that long tradition of Marx's works-- merciless criticism.

Neither Smith nor Jefferson provided anything like merciless criticism, and neither does Chomsky.

Jose Gracchus

22nd February 2011, 03:43

Die Neue Zeit

22nd February 2011, 03:51

I'm afraid simply preaching Marx and materialism I think its a losing method, especially with a mass/lay audience.

[...]

Maybe arguing like DNZ-RED DAVE quibble of the day is what socialism is all about. Personally, I'm glad he's just helping raise consciousness and break down the enormous barriers of deceit and obfuscation.

While I agree that you don't raise consciousness by "preaching" Das Kapital, there are key works by Marx and Engels (brief economic works, but more importantly the big "politico-political" works) as well as their contemporaries that need to be propagated. I emphasize "contemporaries" because of those works which specifically mention worker-class political parties, such as Lassalle's Open Letter.

Jose Gracchus

22nd February 2011, 04:39

As far as the Marxist classics go on approachability, I think David Harvey's quick explanations and summaries are the most approachable I have seen yet, as is his excellent (free!) web lectures on Capital.

I think workers should organize as a class to pursue socialist objectives in the political and social spheres, but I certainly do not know about the organizational forms and trappings that have been historically known as a left-wing revolutionary political party. I do have significant misgivings about it.

As for Chomsky, I mean, he just has his favorite rhetoric to try to communicate. Maybe it is ineffective. As far as being a leftist and not a 'liberal', fact is a lot of anarchists think he's a statist because of his negotiability on the state and political parties. I mean he did give qualified support to North Vietnam and the NLF, and praised some attempts to construct rural communes. Hard to find liberals who are in the business of going to Hanoi and giving a speech to people wishing them luck building socialism, or admiring Maoist agricultural projects.

S.Artesian

22nd February 2011, 05:18

To be honest I reject dialectical materialism as well. And I often think "materialism" is an excuse for left-brand rhetoric (not that I don't think materialism exists).

This idea he's for the Democrats continues to be absurd though, just the other day, in response to a question from a working-class protester in Madison, WI:

Dialectical materialism, an artificial meta-theory designed to recuperate Marx safely into the realm of philosophy and ideology is something to be rejected.

Historical materialism is not to be rejected since it is the actual analysis of the social conditions of labor, of the relations of classes that determine history.

As for Chomsky, I don't think he's a Democrat, but like many others, he'll play the "lesser evil" card when he thinks its appropriate.

Queercommie Girl

23rd February 2011, 00:33

I doubt 18th century native Americans reasoned in terms of "rights", much less in terms of "queer rights", but anyway Jefferson wasn't native American. How many colonists at that time would "learn from native Americans" instead of taking it for granted that they should be enslaved or exterminated?

Actually ancient tribal peoples, like native Americans, tribal Africans, or the Germanic tribes, did have a concept of "rights", even if it's not put in writing. The concept of "rights" is not just some kind of Western bourgeois invention. Refer to Engels' The Origins of the Family.

Also, if you read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, you will find that actually the antagonisms between whites, blacks and native Americans in the early US weren't "natural" or "automatic" at all, but something deliberately exaggerated by the bourgeois ruling class, because they feared that the poor whites could unite with the black slaves and the natives to overthrow their capitalist order.

Besides, you sound like just because the enslavement and genocide happened in the 18th century, therefore we can't criticise it as reactionary. This is as absurd as saying we can't hold Julius Caesar responsible for the enslavement of 1 million people in Gaul because apparently anti-slavery sentiments didn't exist in the 1st century BCE!

Marxism does not believe in "abstract morality", only "socially constructed morality". But surely anti-slavery sentiments existed among the Gauls, blacks and native Americans themselves? Didn't the slave revolts in Haiti happen during the era of Jefferson? Marxists should always be on the side of the enslaved and the oppressed, not the slavers and oppressors.

Well the claim wasn't that Jefferson was anti-slavery, but that he was a (proto?-)socialist, or that he would be one if he lived today.
Which is a ridiculous purely hypothetical claim that can never be empirically proven.

Intelligence and compassion don't count for much, do they? What is important is what people effectively did. In Jefferson's case, it involves his participation in the American Revolution, and his political positions concerning the issues in his day (slavery, industrialisation, republic/monarchy, etc), not his positions concerning issues that weren't within the political agenda.

Well, you seem to be injecting a lot of morals in your study of history, for someone who believes that it shouldn't have no moral or normative value at all. From a Marxist point of view, Jefferson was what he did, and what he did was more or less in sintony with the objective tasks of his time - establishing a capitalism mode of production, and a bourgeois dictatorship to drive it. To the point that he was conducive to that, he was progressive; to the extent that he was an obstacle to it, he was reactionary. Isn't it like that?
To call Jefferson "intelligent and compassionate" is making a moral point, because such words are normative qualifiers.

What I'm against is any attempt to try to paint guys such as him in any kind of morally positive light, beyond a purely objective and scientific study of the economic relations of the time.

This is not to say, however, that Marxism itself is intrinsically amoral. Marxism is underpinned by real human relations, instead of just sets of abstract dialectical equations, and ethics, as a social construction, is an important part of the analysis of productive relation. One does not want to end up like some of the Dengists in China, who solely measures "progress" in terms of economic productivity, instead of primarily on how the system compares with a genuine socialist proletarian democracy. But to find ideological inspiration in the normative sense, socialists should never rely on non-socialist figures.

LuÃs Henrique

23rd February 2011, 14:10

Actually ancient tribal peoples, like native Americans, tribal Africans, or the Germanic tribes, did have a concept of "rights", even if it's not put in writing. The concept of "rights" is not just some kind of Western bourgeois invention. Refer to Engels' The Origins of the Family.

It isn't a Western bourgeois invention, but they are related to the inception of States.

Why would a society that never knew systematic oppression and discrimination agains homosexuals even conceive of "queer rights"?

Also, if you read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, you will find that actually the antagonisms between whites, blacks and native Americans in the early US weren't "natural" or "automatic" at all, but something deliberately exaggerated by the bourgeois ruling class, because they feared that the poor whites could unite with the black slaves and the natives to overthrow their capitalist order.

Well? Seems obvious, what antagonisms of such kind have ever been "natural"?

Besides, you sound like just because the enslavement and genocide happened in the 18th century, therefore we can't criticise it as reactionary.

Eh? Where did I say something similar?

Of course we can criticise events in the far past; we just should avoid misunderstanding them under modern categories.

This is as absurd as saying we can't hold Julius Caesar responsible for the enslavement of 1 million people in Gaul because apparently anti-slavery sentiments didn't exist in the 1st century BCE!

Well, if we are Marxists, no, we don't hold Caesar personally responsible for that. We hold that Ancient Rome was a slave-based society, that that is what slave-based societies do, and we reject the idea that if it was Pompaeus, or Brutus, or Marcus Antonius, or Crassus, it would have been different.

Marxism does not believe in "abstract morality", only "socially constructed morality". But surely anti-slavery sentiments existed among the Gauls, blacks and native Americans themselves?

Frankly, I doubt it very much. Evidently no one likes to be a slave, but the conception that slavery as a system is unacceptable is much more recent.

Didn't the slave revolts in Haiti happen during the era of Jefferson?

Yes, and they were evidently tied to enlightenment ideas. Indeed, they quite short-circuited the eurocentrism of enlightenment; perplexity with the idea that non-Europeans would demand the same kind of "god given rights" Europeans were asserting for themselves was evident at the time.

Marxists should always be on the side of the enslaved and the oppressed, not the slavers and oppressors.

Who is on the side of slavers and oppressors, pray tell?

Which is a ridiculous purely hypothetical claim that can never be empirically proven.

Yes? I thought this is what I have been saying throughout this thread?

To call Jefferson "intelligent and compassionate" is making a moral point, because such words are normative qualifiers.

That's not true. Hitler for instance was obviously intelligent; how is recognising this fact in any way a "moral point"? Gandhi on the other hand was obviously compassionate; what's the "moral point" here?

Being intelligent, or even compassionate, doesn't make a person a political ally of ours.

What I'm against is any attempt to try to paint guys such as him in any kind of morally positive light, beyond a purely objective and scientific study of the economic relations of the time.

That is absurd.

"Morally positive" only makes sence in relative terms. What the point is of qualifying Caesar as a "ruling class slave-holder bastard" if there are no counter-examples? All ruling class people at that time were slave-holders; those who weren't slave-holders were not ruling class. Not owning slaves in and of itself doesn't entail an anti-slavery mentality.

This is not to say, however, that Marxism itself is intrinsically amoral. Marxism is underpinned by real human relations, instead of just sets of abstract dialectical equations, and ethics, as a social construction, is an important part of the analysis of productive relation.

No, "ethics" aren't of course part of relations of production, they are part of the superstructure.

One does not want to end up like some of the Dengists in China, who solely measures "progress" in terms of economic productivity, instead of primarily on how the system compares with a genuine socialist proletarian democracy. But to find ideological inspiration in the normative sense, socialists should never rely on non-socialist figures.

That's nonsense, sorry. There are plenty of non-socialist figures that can provide ideological inspiration in the "normative sence" (unless by ideological inspiration you mean practical guidance). Spartakus, for instance.

Listen, I am not particularly interested in Jefferson, nor am I defending him, or "painting him in a morally positive light". My point is, anachronisms aren't helpful in understanding history; you can't individually blame people for not seeing points that were socially invisible for the societies they lived in. Jefferson cannot be a reference for socialists, not because he was a "bastard" - even if he actually was one, which well may be - but because the set of problems we have to solve were mostly unknown to him.

Luís Henrique

Sinister Cultural Marxist

23rd February 2011, 16:20

Simon bolivar probably wasn't a socialist either, but if convincing venezuelans that he was made socialism more appealing, then so be it :P

One CAN argue that the ideas of old, outdated thinkers, if viewed critically or taken to their logical conclusion, can produce other, more radical kinds of wisdom. Marx, of course, saw himself as bringing in Smith, Ricardo, Hegel, Fichte and Proudhon. But he also saw himself as having avoided what he thought of as the mistakes in their thought. Calling Jefferson a Socialist is like calling Caesar a Capitalist, it's an inverted anachronism. But this kind of phenomenon is used by many political movements to justify their thought. Chomsky is doing here what Mao Tse-Tsung did during his rule. For instance, Mao saw himself as "continuing" Marx's thought much in the way Chomsky is arguing that if Jefferson had "continued" thinking, he would have become a Socialist. In reality, it's a silly argument to begin with, as it doesn't even matter; if Mao Tse-Tsung's theories were right, they should have held themselves on their own precepts and not their connection to the earlier thinker, Marx, to be true. If Socialism is correct, it is correct whether or not it is the "logical conclusion" of Jeffersonian thinking. I think the world would be a better place if we mythologized thinkers a little less.