American founding fathers

[TheYoungCommie]

Did they wink at eachother when they wrote all men are created equal?

[Red Nightmare]

Well America certainly has had a horrible track record of living up to that declaration, hasn't it? Jefferson was just trying to refute the idea of royal bloodlines and monarchy rather than suggest that all people actually were equal, which I doubt he actually believed.

[Brutus]

'created' being the key word.

[Nevsky]

Liberalism's eternal hypocrisy lies in the unfortunate circumstance that "freedom" is a privilege. The privilege of the "society of the free", to be precise. A slave is not part of said society, he is property. Thus, the owner is "free" to keep him as he likes. Property rights were historically colliding with liberalism's ethical claim to aim for euqality.

[Geiseric]

Yeah he was a tool. Franklin was against slavery but for other wierd racist reasons. Thomas paine and samuel Adams however were actually progressive bourgeois at the time like the french revolutionaries. But the American war of independence was an unfinished revolution, contradictions with its end already laid the seeds for the civil war. Such as the 3/5 compromise. It was all complete crap.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Yeah, the FFs were an odd group of men. But there were some real jewels amongst them ....Paine and Adams, for example. Aaron Burr was also kinda awesome.

But it must also be remembered that the primary revolutionary class at the time was the progressive bourgeois. They played there part in that particular phase of history, and there efforts completely shook the power base of the western world. Lenin was something of an admirer of the American Revolution....in fact alot of the early socialists and communists had something of a fondness for it.

And, of course, Thomas Paine is proof enough that socialism, even in its infant form, was a part of American history even in its beginning.

[Klaatu]

"all men are created equal"

translation:

"all men owning property are created equal"

that pretty much ruled out slaves, serfs, the poor, the natives, women, etc

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But it must also be remembered that the primary revolutionary class at the time was the progressive bourgeois. They played there part in that particular phase of history, and there efforts completely shook the power base of the western world.
This.

The American Revolution also influenced the United Irishmen, as can be seen by their catechism:

What is that in your hand?
-- It is a branch
Of What?
-- Of the Tree of Liberty
Where did it first grow?
-- In America
Where does it bloom?
-- In France
Where did the seed fall?
-- In Ireland

[cyu]

Did they wink at eachother when they wrote all men are created equal?


It was a work of propaganda - not so much meant to be legally binding, but to rally people to their revolution. Personally I would say leftists do themselves a disservice when they simply dismiss these "Fathers" as hypocrites. Instead, they should be studied as much as those involved in any successful revolution should be studied.

Failed revolutions can only teach you what not to do. Successful revolutions will have in them things that worked. What parts can be re-used? Sure, other parts of their ideology may be lacking - but there's a difference between the tactics that overthrew a government, and the eventual policies that replaced it.

If they lacked understanding of economics or human nature, if they didn't know how to make all their people happy, those are shortcomings for us to fix. But if they successfully rallied people and used various tactics that were able to overthrow the existing system, there are things that can be learned as well.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

@cyu

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Like I said earlier, Lenin was an admirer of the American Revolution ("one of the great, really liberating, really revolutionary wars" -Lenin), and many of the early socialists and communists looked at it with a certain sense of awe (though they were more than aware of the contradicitions).

Obviously, as an American I will seem biased...but it's sometimes forgotten how truly revolutionary the American Revolution generally was. It was the first time that a country was founded entirely on an ideal, instead of a common race, religion or creed. Yes, it definitely had its flaws, but it turned the entire power base of the western world upside down. It's existence was a slap in the face of monarchists and autocracy, and showed that a nation could be formed from those without a drop of 'noble blood' in them. It inspired similar revolutions all over Europe, including the French Revolution.

So....even though I'm a socialist, I can still say that I admire the Founding Fathers and what they accomplished, despite flaws that are absolutely glaring in hindsight. There were some real gems in that group of men.

[MarxArchist]

It was a work of propaganda - not so much meant to be legally binding, but to rally people to their revolution. Personally I would say leftists do themselves a disservice when they simply dismiss these "Fathers" as hypocrites. Instead, they should be studied as much as those involved in any successful revolution should be studied.

Failed revolutions can only teach you what not to do. Successful revolutions will have in them things that worked. What parts can be re-used? Sure, other parts of their ideology may be lacking - but there's a difference between the tactics that overthrew a government, and the eventual policies that replaced it.

If they lacked understanding of economics or human nature, if they didn't know how to make all their people happy, those are shortcomings for us to fix. But if they successfully rallied people and used various tactics that were able to overthrow the existing system, there are things that can be learned as well.

The American revolution was successful because there were real tangible material gains for people to get behind and fight for which in the long term ended up simply continuing the process of dispossession people were running from in Europe. They called America "the new world" not so much because it was newly discovered land (in their eyes) but because people could start a new life free from the system of property that completely engulfed Europe, a system which forced them into wage labor, forced them to submit to landlords and banks. The old system also forced them to pay taxes to the state which is mostly what the class the founding fathers came from were interested in ending. There were a few who spoke of the degrading nature of having no choice but to work for a boss in order to survive, to have to pay a landlord rent or a bank interest on loans but largely the founding fathers wanted the King/state to keep their hands off their profits. A sort of new magna carta was eventually created (the constitution) but the class the founding fathers came from were previously successful in directing popular anger against taxes (things like the Boston Tea Party were purely planned propaganda).

The masses of people who first came to 'the new world' weren't of this merchant class but their interests materially aligned in so far as they all wanted to flee the system in England (and other nations) where the old feudal traditions were still functioning to a degree and where embryonic or pre capitalist property relations were also making liberty next to impossible. The poor and the merchants both shared a mutual enemy (the king or state in England). Little did the poor (and Native Americans) know what sort of system the merchants had in store for them. A system that eventually completely dispossessed them of the ability to survive without submitting to a boss/landlord/bank and one, in order for industrial commerce to be possible, that also eventually hit them with hefty taxes. At the end of the day the American revolution was successful because the people had direct material gains to fight for (and because England's enemies gave support to the new rebel state in America).

[Bright Banana Beard]

Yes, they wanted to keep the privilege for themselves just in case.