Much has been said
about our founding fathers in recent years. The Tea Party has all of
the sudden become historical scholars. They have become the defenders
of our Country and our Constitution. Glenn Beck is their proverbial
historical professor. Unfortunately their knowledge is fairly limited
to specifically what their Fox News comrade regurgitates.
In 1797, Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet called “Agrarian Justice“. It
was his last great pamphlet and it was addressed to the French
legislature, itself in the throes of revolution. While he addressed the
pamphlet to the French legislature, he meant the plan in it to be
universal, as he said in his accompanying letter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice
The plan contained in this work is not adapted for any particular
country alone: the principle on which it is based is general. But as
the rights of man are a new study in this world, and one needing
protection from priestly imposture, and the insolence of oppressions
too long established, I have thought it right to place this little work
under your safeguard.
Paine starts his proposal by discussing poverty. First of all, he says
poverty is not natural:
“Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called
civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand,
the natural state is without those advantages which flow from
agriculture, arts, science and manufactures.”
Paine decries the disparity of income just I have and many other
liberals have today:
“Civilization, therefore, or that which is so-called, has operated
two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more
wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.”
http://www.politicususa.com/founding-fathers-liberal.html
***I am sure you get the point of that, more over when you look at the
Socialism part in the past! ***
What are the progressive aspects of last century’s socialism? And from
where did the original ideas come? These are extremely relevant
questions in light of the international economic and political
upheavals.
Modern socialism was born alongside capitalism and in opposition to it.
When the basic features of industrial capitalism first came into
existence — in the early 1800’s — people instantly recognized that
drastic changes needed to be made: the large industries that emerged
created dehumanizing conditions for the majority of people — forcing
people to work twelve and fourteen hours a day for starvation wages —
while a tiny minority were becoming fabulously wealthy. This is not
what most people had fought for in the English, American, and French
revolutions.
The “utopian socialists” in the early 1800s tried to correct these
social inequities by proposing grand schemes that, if adopted by
governments, would help harmonize society. These reformers, however,
soon learned that those in power wanted little to do with their ideas.
They also learned that “alternative economic models” set up next to the
large capitalist enterprises were soon crushed by these corporations,
due to the superior wealth encapsulated in the giant machines the
capitalists owned, as well as the state machinery that the corporate
elite controlled.
The Utopian’s failure was partially due to a lack of understanding. At
the time, people were attempting to grasp what was happening to
society; capitalist industrialization was happening at a lightning
pace, with little preparedness or understanding from the majority of
people. Blind economic forces seemed to be advancing uncontrollably.
In fact, modern socialism can be theoretically reduced to correcting
the economic contradictions that inherently exist in capitalism. Marx
listed these contradictions in his Capital; the “socialist solution” is
merely the correction of these fundamental problems of capitalism.
For example, in capitalism’s embryonic stage, the capitalist ran a
small shop, where perhaps he sold wagon wheels. But as capitalism
evolved, a thousand times more goods were produced after the whole town
was organized to make wagon wheels, each person performing a different,
very small task, but all working cooperatively to produce the final
product. The profit, however, went to one person — the owner, or
owners. The result was that wagon wheels were immensely cheaper, and
those who could not afford the high cost of the factory-approach of
production — machines, labor costs, and raw materials — were pushed out
of the market.
Eventually, those capitalists unable to compete evolved into workers,
while more and more money was needed to purchase the giant machinery
and infrastructure needed to stay a competitive capitalist; through
this dynamic wealth increased at one pole and decreased at the other.
This shows a fundamental contradiction of capitalism: all of society is
organized to produce goods and services; workers work “collectively” to
build products, i.e., they work “socialistically,” but the vast
majority of the wealth produced goes to a small minority of
non-working, very wealthy shareholders. Thus, to correct this problem,
the wealth produced by society should be distributed to those who
create it, not funneled into the pockets of the rich. This would
require transferring the vast majority of the productive machinery from
private ownership of a few to the control of vast majority.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-origins-of-modern-socialism/16739
***Not many people know about the paper "Agrarian Justice." It's like many want it to be not known!
Well it sure seems like it to me! Like going from High school into college and finding out,
hoover wore a dress! That points to a selective education and missing out on a lot. Why?
