Thomas Jefferson, Revolutionary in more ways than one

[Révolutionnaire Acadien]

Upon browsing through documents of President Jefferson, one of my favorite American Presidents, other than Teddy Roosevelt of course, I found a couple interesting snippets from his letters. It certainly brings him into a new light! Tell me what you think Comrades!

From a letter to James Madison dated October 28th, 1785 "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."


From a letter to Thomas Kosciusko dated April 13th, 1811
"Knowing your affection to this country, and the interest you take in whatever concerns it, I therein gave you a tableau of its state when I retired from the administration. Peace . . . has been our principle, peace in our interest, and peace has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government now existing in it. If it can still be preserved, we shall soon see the final extinction of our national debt, and liberation of our revenues for the defence and improvement of our country. These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich, the business of household manufacture being now so established that the farmer and laborer clothe themselves entirely. The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. The poor man who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, or within his own country, pays not a farthing of tax to the general government, but on his salt ; and should we go into that manufacture also, as is probable, he will pay nothing. Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings. However, therefore, we may have been reproached for pursuing our Quaker system, time will affix the stamp of wisdom on it, and the happiness and prosperity of our citizens will attest its merit. And this, I believe, is the only legitimate object of government, and the first duty of governors . . ."

[Rafiq]

Thomas Jefferson was a scumbag who raped his own slaves.

[Ostrinski]

Roosevelt was a great president, between all the lapdancing for Porfirio Diaz and dividing up Asia.

[Révolutionnaire Acadien]

Had a feeling that was coming please prove he raped them and I'll whole heartily believe you... Mao and Stalin caused the deaths of millions of people, and Che Guevera was a racist and a sadist. Let's just separate the ideas from the people. This is to teach Tea Baggers another side of the Founders, whom they nearly deify, if you use hard evidence like this, it may cause them to think twice about leftist policies because they follow the words of the Founders like Christians to the Bible.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm sorry RA, they really don't. If you prove Jefferson was a progressive (or Tom Paine or any of the others) they'll just drop him and ignore. The ideology is to preserve free-market capitalism. They take quotes out of context and twist meanings, re-contextualise arguments to 'prove' their point, and then if all else fails just lie - have you heard the one about Marx and taxes?

I agree that rescuing the Founding Fathers from the insaniacs of the Tea Party is a noble project (primarily, because it's about historical truth) but I don't think it's going to change one Teabagger's mind. It just denies them the comfort of thinking that anyone else has ever agreed with them ('cept Hitler of course, but secretly they all like him).

[Révolutionnaire Acadien]

Well I'll fight on nonetheless, I've always favored being an underdog. Finding things like this just renew my sense of pride in the idea of America when things seem crappy.

[Misanthrope]

other than Teddy Roosevelt of course,

I'm sorry but what the fuck? How can a so called anarchist champion an EXTREME imperialist?

Nonetheless..

A high tax on the rich and low tax on the poor is not revolutionary. It is reformist capitalism. The only revolutionary approach to capitalism is to eliminate it completely.

[Azraella]

All fo the founding fathers were incredibly complex. As much as I can admire what Jefferson wrote for example, I don't respect his racism or apparently misogyny. But the same goes for great socialist thinkers. Bakunin was an anti-semite, and Marx was supposedly misogynistic. This doesn't devalue their ideas but it does tarnish them as as people.

As another example, I am quite fond of Locke and like to argue that Locke was a socialist(or at least proto-socialist) and yet Locke thought slavery was acceptable despite believing in freedom. Not all people are perfect.

Blake's Baby is right as well. The founding father's have been twisted to be free-market capitalists which is a fucked up look at their ideas. The Tea Party is really good at twisting the intent of the Constitution as well(the first two amendments come to mind)

[Ostrinski]

I'm sorry but what the fuck? How can a so called anarchist champion an EXTREME imperialist?

Nonetheless..

A high tax on the rich and low tax on the poor is not revolutionary. It is reformist capitalism. The only revolutionary approach to capitalism is to eliminate it completely.Though, one could say that such a view was revolutionary in its historical context, albeit not now.

[Ostrinski]

Marx was supposedly misogynistic.I had heard that he was homophobic, but never had I heard this. Can you link me?


As another example, I am quite fond of Locke and like to argue that Locke was a socialist(or at least proto-socialist) and yet Locke thought slavery was acceptable despite believing in freedom. Not all people are perfect.How can someone who believes in property rights be even proto-socialist?

[Grenzer]

I have little respect for the "founding fathers" in the modern context. The entire edifice of bourgeois philosophy is a sham to justify their right to property and establish a plutocratic dictatorship.

In a historical sense, the founders were progressive, but by our modern standards they are complete scum and should be regarded as such. Thomas Jefferson I have a special dislike for. He realized on an intellectual level why slavery was terrible, but still supported it anyway.

I find it incredibly hard to believe Marx was a misogynist considering he talks about the emancipation of women from patriarchal domination right in the Manifesto.

[Ostrinski]

Even while most of the founding fathers were scum, I have reservations for the big man T-Paine. To my knowledge he didn't own slaves, and wrote African Slavery In America, the original abolitionist text. He was also the most radical of the founding fathers. Doesn't make him any less bourgeois in modern context, and this is probably just worthless moralizing but does make him a cool cat and one of my favorite Enlightenment figures.

Also, let us not forget the founding mothers:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHZ92bE92NwdKWJoOes6OW30jTtMiov V0JpArMs-b1LKS7B3VJ

[Azraella]

I had heard that he was homophobic, but never had I heard this. Can you link me?[QUOTE]

Lemme look for it



[QUOTE]How can someone who believes in property rights be even proto-socialist?

The Lockean proviso is incredibly complex. I talked about Locke on my blog once (http://pagananarchist.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/locke-the-socialist-applying-lockean-principles-to-anarchism/). I think the only consistent way to look at Locke is in a proto-socialist context.

Essentially I think the proviso doesn't allow for unhampered capitalist accumulation or of property.

[Grenzer]

As another example, I am quite fond of Locke and like to argue that Locke was a socialist(or at least proto-socialist) and yet Locke thought slavery was acceptable despite believing in freedom. Not all people are perfect.

I can understand where you are coming form, but I think this view is mistaken. IN my opinion, John Locke in particular was attempting to lay the philosophical framework to justify the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. When he talks about "freedom" what he really means is freedom for the bourgeoisie from the arbitrary capriciousness of the aristocracy, who were born with the privileges. He seems to regard the right to private property as the most important to the bourgeois state.

His rhetoric on freedom and liberty are essentially meaningless in the proletarian context, as it costs the bourgeois nothing to grant rights that are unable to actually be exercised. Bourgeois concepts of "Freedom" should be rejected in their entirety in my opinion as they are just another form of slavery. I desire a freedom from arbitrary freedom.

Not to say that enlightenment era texts and philosophies have no value, the more scientific oriented texts are still relevant today, and bourgeois philosophy is critical to understanding the process of historical development, as the rise of bourgeois philosophy was a reflection of the material rise of the bourgeoisie as a class.

[Ostrinski]

Enlightenment philosophy is of value in understanding history, but not of practical use.

[Rafiq]

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/08/20/thomas-jefferson-the-face-of-a-rapist/

[Rafiq]

Had a feeling that was coming please prove he raped them and I'll whole heartily believe you...

Yup see above.


Mao and Stalin caused the deaths of millions of people,

And you dare call yourself an "existentialist"? You're an Idealist. To think single men can cause, by themselves, the deaths of millions of people "cuz der evil" is fucking insanity.

Mao and Stalin didn't mass murder common people. They murdered their political opponents, which were one hundred percent of the time members of the ruling elite, anyway.

Thomas Jefferson personally raped his own slaves. China underwent economic systematic failure which resulted in the death of (Highest estimate) fifteen million people. And the same could be said about Stalin (though, during the purges, aprox. 600,000 died). My evidence? NKVD archives. That shit never lied, as they were never released to the public until the 1990's.


and Che Guevera was a racist and a sadist.

Che Guevara was a racist during his motorcycle journey, but he wasn't a communist at that time either.

The same time Che became a communist is when he purged him self of his pragmatic racist beliefs.

And he was a sadist? The fuck? No more than your buddy George Washington, who conducted large scale massacres, that aren't even fucking comparable to anything Che did.


Let's just separate the ideas from the people. This is to teach Tea Baggers another side of the Founders,

It's disgusting how Leftists try to "Win back" whitewashed individuals. It's not about you teaching anything with Tea baggers, you're just trying to find political common ground with the enemy. As of today, the founders can go fuck themselves one by one. Sure, we support them against the British empire, but it ends there. Politically, use of the founders in modern times is reactionary and counter revolutionary. They have no place amongst champions of the red star.


whom they nearly deify, if you use hard evidence like this, it may cause them to think twice about leftist policies because they follow the words of the Founders like Christians to the Bible.


You're Idealist colors are shining once more. Members of the Bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie could give fuck all about the real origins of the founding fathers. For them, they (Founding fuckers) are merely a tool to exert their interest as a class. If you prove to them that Thomas Jefferson said a few bad things about authoritah (:rolleyes:) they'll just find another dip shit to rally around.

[eric922]

Even while most of the founding fathers were scum, I have reservations for the big man T-Paine. To my knowledge he didn't own slaves, and wrote African Slavery In America, the original abolitionist text. He was also the most radical of the founding fathers. Doesn't make him any less bourgeois in modern context, and this is probably just worthless moralizing but does make him a cool cat and one of my favorite Enlightenment figures.

Also, let us not forget the founding mothers:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHZ92bE92NwdKWJoOes6OW30jTtMiov V0JpArMs-b1LKS7B3VJ
Paine was ahead of his time in many ways and much more radical than the other Founders. In one of his works, Agrarian Justice, he seems to argue against private property, though I may be misinterpreting what he is saying.

[Ostrinski]

Paine was ahead of his time in many ways and much more radical than the other Founders. In one of his works, Agrarian Justice, he seems to argue against private property, though I may be misinterpreting what he is saying.He acknowledged that inequality's root lied within private property and that land in its uncultivated state was naturally mutually owned, but that it was a "necessary evil" or some bourgeois shit like that.

[teflon_john]

I'm sorry RA, they really don't. If you prove Jefferson was a progressive (or Tom Paine or any of the others) they'll just drop him and ignore.


not to defend the fartknocker, but they already have here in the third coast y'all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/14/backstory-how-the-texas-t_n_496831.html

[gorillafuck]

Even while most of the founding fathers were scum, I have reservations for the big man T-Paine. To my knowledge he didn't own slaves, and wrote African Slavery In America, the original abolitionist text. He was also the most radical of the founding fathers. Doesn't make him any less bourgeois in modern context, and this is probably just worthless moralizing but does make him a cool cat and one of my favorite Enlightenment figures.he autotuned the revolution

[Franz Fanonipants]

Well I'll fight on nonetheless, I've always favored being an underdog. Finding things like this just renew my sense of pride in the idea of America when things seem crappy.

hahaha an american president, slaveowner, imperialist is who you are underdogging for

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm sorry but what the fuck? How can a so called anarchist champion an EXTREME imperialist?

8 times out of 10 on revleft anarchism is synonymous w/liberalism

[Blake's Baby]

Shock horror.

Don't you mean 'anti-imperialist' FF? Surely he was totally 'eergh! Bad old English Dead White Male Empire! I spit on you and you wigs'n'shit! Fuck your tax on knowledge and tea an' stuff!'

Even Marx thought the American Revolution was progressive. OK, the French Revolution soon out-progressived it, but for 20 years it was the most progressive thing going.

[Franz Fanonipants]

sorry bro i was too busy focusing on the baller shit that Tabivo Naritgant was doing because fuck the 13 colonies, spanish borderlands forever

[Klaatu]

One thing I like about Jefferson was that he was anti-religion. He cut out parts of his Bible (with a knife) that he disagreed with, for example, the parts about "miracles." He may not have been Atheist (as some claim) but at the same time, he did not accept and swallow all the B.S. spewed out by the so-called "theologians."

This might be a coincidence, but my rep points just turned into 666 :crying:

[Azraella]

One thing I like about Jefferson was that he was anti-religion. He cut out parts of his Bible (with a knife) that he disagreed with, for example, the parts about "miracles."

Jefferson's views are complicated. At different points in time he called himself a materialist, deist, Christian, and a Unitarian. It's most likely that he identified as a "Christian Deist" of some sort that viewed Jesus as a great morality teacher and just didn't believe in miracles. (Possibly in a vein similar to Kant's rational religion)



he did not accept and swallow all the B.S. spewed out by the so-called "theologians."


Most people have never read Aquinas or Augustine for example and at the time, process and process liberation theology was popular which had a very unorthodox view of god. It's actually more likely that he didn't read theology at all and was more interested in philosophy.


His rhetoric on freedom and liberty are essentially meaningless in the proletarian context, as it costs the bourgeois nothing to grant rights that are unable to actually be exercised. Bourgeois concepts of "Freedom" should be rejected in their entirety in my opinion as they are just another form of slavery. I desire a freedom from arbitrary freedom

I must be the only person who thinks early anarchism has more in common with classical liberalism than early socialism. That said, I actually agree here.

[Grenzer]

I must be the only person who thinks early anarchism has more in common with classical liberalism than early socialism. That said, I actually agree here.

What do you mean by early Anarchism exactly? Surely you don't mean Bakunin. I'm not really that familiar with Anarchist thinkers, which is why I have to ask.

[Ostrinski]

One thing I like about Jefferson was that he was anti-religion. He cut out parts of his Bible (with a knife) that he disagreed with, for example, the parts about "miracles." He may not have been Atheist (as some claim) but at the same time, he did not accept and swallow all the B.S. spewed out by the so-called "theologians."It wasn't uncommon for Enlightenment thinkers to have this view. Many of them did. Paine, Voltaire, Hume, Montesquieu, Robespierre, etc.

[Azraella]

What do you mean by early Anarchism exactly? Surely you don't mean Bakunin. I'm not really that familiar with Anarchist thinkers, which is why I have to ask.


I'm talking Proudhon and to a lesser extent William Godwin. Godwin in particular was very favorable to minarchism and anarchism. Both have some definitive classical liberal influences.

It wasn't until Bakunin and Mahkno that you start to see the beginnings of what we call 'social anarchism'

[Ostrinski]

I'm talking Proudhon and to a lesser extent William Godwin. Godwin in particular was very favorable to minarchism and anarchism. Both have some definitive classical liberal influences.

It wasn't until Bakunin and Mahkno that you start to see the beginnings of what we call 'social anarchism'Proudhon and Godwin were also not concerned with overthrowing the capitalist mode of production, as Bakunin and Makhno were.

[Azraella]

Proudhon and Godwin were also not concerned with overthrowing the capitalist mode of production, as Bakunin and Makhno were.

This too.

Proudhon's ideology while anti-capitalist has some of the flaws of capitalism and I don't recall Godwin ever talking about economics.

[Grenzer]

A lot of Anarchists that I know at least don't see Proudhon in too good of a light. From my understanding he actually advocated "market socialism" which as we on the board know it, is a contradiction in terms. I've never heard of Godwin though.

[Azraella]

A lot of Anarchists that I know at least don't see Proudhon in too good of a light. From my understanding he actually advocated "market socialism" which as we on the board know it, is a contradiction in terms.


He advocated Mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economy)) which has some flaws(I think Marx's criticisms while strawmannish at times, have some merit to them) but is a valid part of anarchism. I prefer his criticisms to property over his criticisms of capitalism to be honest

[Ostrinski]

Mutualism is capitalist in that it doesn't address the factors that constitute a capitalist mode of production, like production orientated towards exchange vs. production oriented towards usefulness. Proudhon addressed capitalist property relations, but not capitalist value relations, which Marx understood as inexorably related. It seems as though the early anarchists were more concerned with the political question than with productive relations.

[Grenzer]

It wasn't uncommon for Enlightenment thinkers to have this view. Many of them did. Paine, Voltaire, Hume, Montesquieu, Robespierre, etc.

From what I can gather, irreligion seems to be the natural state of the bourgeoisie. This attitude in the philosophical context of bourgeois ideology has only changed since the elimination of illiteracy from industrialized countries, and I believe this is no coincidence. They only adhere to religion on a false or extremely superficial level because it serves their purposes. This of course makes organized religion no less reactionary.

[Ostrinski]

From what I can gather, irreligion seems to be the natural state of the bourgeoisie. This attitude in the philosophical context of bourgeois ideology has only changed since the elimination of illiteracy from industrialized countries, and I believe this is no coincidence. They only adhere to religion on a false or extremely superficial level because it serves their purposes. This of course makes organized religion no less reactionary.Indeed, comrade. Enlightenment (bourgeois) philosophy is historically revolutionary because the bourgeoisie is such a (historically) revolutionary class. Secularization was a result of the bourgeois transformation of society.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Thomas Jefferson was a scumbag who raped his own slaves.

He raped his slaves, yet his original draft of the Declaration of Independence actually talked a lot against slavery. How ironic. A lot of the original Declaration had to be cut out to satisfy Jefferson's fellow Southerns. This is what John Adams said about it: "I suppose the reason [for the editing of the Declaration] is the vehement philippic against Negro slavery."

But after he wrote all that stuff against slavery, he went back to Montecarlo and did this to his slaves: :tt2:. llllooollll.

Hope I didn't offend anyone.:blushing:

[Ostrinski]

But after he wrote all that stuff against slavery, he went back to Montecarlo and did this to his slaves: :tt2:. llllooollll.

Hope I didn't offend anyone.:blushing:Definitely appropriate.

[Agent Ducky]

Well I'll fight on nonetheless, I've always favored being an underdog. Finding things like this just renew my sense of pride in the idea of America when things seem crappy.

Pride in the idea of America? And you call yourself an anarchist? :confused:
I thought we were generally against the idea of nations and borders and whatnot...?

And Teddy Roosevelt? Like, okay, I get how one can construe what he did as a form of badassery but dammnnn that imperialism O_o. "Ohai Panama. That's a nice isthmus you got there. Don't mind me, I'm just occupying part of your country while building something I never technically had the right to build in the first place, no problem here."

[Franz Fanonipants]

One thing I like about Jefferson was that he was anti-religion. He cut out parts of his Bible (with a knife) that he disagreed with, for example, the parts about "miracles." He may not have been Atheist (as some claim) but at the same time, he did not accept and swallow all the B.S. spewed out by the so-called "theologians."

This might be a coincidence, but my rep points just turned into 666 :crying:

yes an anti-religious liberal sounds like a familiar pathology for revleft

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

He raped his slaves, yet his original draft of the Declaration of Independence actually talked a lot against slavery. How ironic. A lot of the original Declaration had to be cut out to satisfy Jefferson's fellow Southerns. This is what John Adams said about it: "I suppose the reason [for the editing of the Declaration] is the vehement philippic against Negro slavery."

But after he wrote all that stuff against slavery, he went back to Montecarlo and did this to his slaves: :tt2:. llllooollll.

Hope I didn't offend anyone.:blushing:

I said Montecarlo. I meant Monticello. I am so stupid . . . :blink: