Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
April 27, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

The Age of Paine

Posted on Jul 3, 2009
Thomas Paine
Portrait by Auguste Millière

Thomas Paine has sometimes had few readers beyond those students who are required to read his great revolutionary pamphlet “Common Sense,” the firebrand Paine wielded to spread the flame of independence throughout the British colonies in America.

By Scott Tucker

(Page 3)

This is memorable writing, but in his later works Paine unmistakably changes his tone and reasoning when he revisits the subject of the duties and limits of government. Unfortunately, the famous early lines of Paine are framed and frozen as his essential creed even by some scholars sympathetic to the libertarian left and to democratic socialism. Indeed, when political scientist Isaac Kramnick wrote an introduction to a bicentennial Pelican edition of “Common Sense” in 1976 (later republished by Penguin Classics), Kramnick interpreted Paine in this manner: “Government was not a positive agent laying the foundation for a just or a good society, let alone a welfare state. Its only role was to provide a stable and secure setting for the operations of commercial society.”

That is not just a minor misreading of Paine, but a major distortion of the whole trajectory of his thought, both early and late in his life. The philosopher A.J. Ayer noted a tension between the arguments Paine made for natural rights, and the arguments he made in a more utilitarian manner; but in neither case did Paine ever abandon a distinctly moral view of human relations. Paine’s moral sense smolders and flares up on almost every page, even when he is presenting economic facts and figures. Paine’s critique of government did change with time, and he did finally find a larger role for both government and taxation in providing basic social democracy. But Kramnick simply portrays Paine as a lifelong exemplar of “bourgeois radicalism,” and this might be historically true if he meant to argue that many 18th century mechanics would join a rising middle class.

That argument would border upon my own in this article, since Paine was among the most class-conscious of the radical republicans. Kramnick’s only argument for class consciousness, however, would have to be an argument for a middle class rising right up to the ruling class. For what would stop them? Not “bourgeois radicalism,” which Kramnick bluntly defines as “the ideology of Tom Paine.” Here we come to the real reason Paine has never been a welcome figure in group portraits of the Founding Fathers. In the person of Paine we do behold an ideologically contradictory persona, but also a rapidly evolving egalitarianism. Kramnick acknowledged “that Paine pushed bourgeois radicalism to its outermost limits. … ” Kramnick’s bicentennial message, if not his class-conscious mission, becomes plain in his own words:

“To emphasize the bourgeois Paine is not to discount the Paine who later would become a hero for the Chartists and early trade unionists. It is simply to insist that his radicalism be seen as still within the bourgeois fold, a line of interpretation receiving little stress in recent discussions of his politics.”


Square, Site wide
This is nothing less and nothing more than the molding of a bicentennial wax-work figure of laissez-faire ideology, the stamping of a “special edition” medallion from the Franklin Mint, and, in short, the conjuration of a prophet and precursor of Gerald Ford in the year 1976. Readers can be pointed to Kramnick’s text to decide whether he does or doesn’t discount the Paine who became an early hero for later labor radicals and even for frank socialists.

In studying the works of Paine, we find a man both daring and conflicted. Paine often draws back from the brink of his own most advanced ideas. Sometimes we find Paine surveying a social chasm wider than the Grand Canyon; and, with all his good will and genius in the 18th century, he cannot draw up a single-span iron bridge to cross over to the other side. Paine was certainly a troubled man in some periods of his life, and finally a quite lonely man as well. If we attribute this only to personality and not also to class consciousness, then the anxiety of Paine teaches us no more useful lesson than the anxiety of various scholars seeking to keep him “within the bourgeois fold.”

“Tyranny, for Paine, was taxation.” So Kramnick wrote, and for proof he offered a quote from Paine’s “Anti-Monarchical Essay” (1792): “ … in a word, whoever demands a king, demands an aristocracy, and thirty millions in taxes.” Yes, but it does not follow that whoever demands millions in taxes to provide grants to young workers, solidarity to the unemployed and aid for the elderly is thereby demanding the restoration of monarchy. For these are precisely some of the economic proposals Paine also makes in “The Rights of Man.” In that book Paine laid line after line of dynamite at the foundations of the fortress built up with so many medieval towers and turrets by Edmund Burke to defend hereditary peers, prejudice and property. Here we will find Paine pushing the limits of 18th century social democracy, and we will find him making class-conscious and materialist arguments:

“Why, then, does Mr. Burke talk of his house of peers, as the pillar of the landed interest? Were that pillar to sink into the earth, the same landed property would continue, and the same ploughing, sowing, and reaping would go on. The aristocracy are not the farmers who work the land, and raise the produce, but are the consumers of the rent; and when compared with the active world are the drones, a seraglio of males, who neither collect the honey nor form the hive, but exist for lazy enjoyment.”

Paine was acquainted in England with William Blake, who already mentioned the “dark Satanic mills” of early industrialism in one of his poems. Had Paine lived to observe British factories and working-class slums a century later, he would have given that scene a similar survey.

In Paine’s time, Adam Smith was considered the Isaac Newton of economics, thus giving mercantile capitalism the blessings of the laws of nature. Smith often stated that trade monopolies undermined free trade, without giving any clear enforcement plan beyond moral warnings to break up such monopolies. Many self-styled disciples of Smith happily edit out the moral homilies, and then read him as if he was simply an 18th century Ayn Rand. The same liberties can be taken with Paine for the sake of the same libertarian ideology. Paine was certainly influenced by doctrines of the free market. In Paine’s time, the free market already had both mechanical and metaphysical properties, since the machinery of class domination had been set in perpetual motion by some hidden hand. This was an early version of the belief that the free market was free as the birds and the bees, though also subject to a few natural disasters.

Capitalism, in the most optimistic view (then and now), was naturalism. Adam Smith did not, of course, have in mind Ayn Rand’s Social Darwinism. No, but as the real costs of the free market grew unmistakable, the naked Social Darwinist doctrine became necessary. From the fountainhead of class struggle emerged not only the trade unions and the socialists, but also such “libertarian” class warriors as von Mises, Rand and Milton Friedman. Where do we locate Thomas Paine in this picture? He studied economic documents, but he was not an economist. He was not only a citizen of England, America and France, but also a citizen of “the republic of letters.” In “The Rights of Man,” Paine even took the utopian view (all too much under the spell of Smith) that commerce tended to advance world peace: “I have been an advocate for commerce, because I am a friend of its effects. It is a pacific system, operating to unite mankind by rendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other. … If commerce were permitted to act to the universal extent it is capable of, it would extirpate the system of war, and produce a revolution in the uncivilized state of governments.” This was naive even in his own day, but we cannot blame him for not forecasting the fierce imperial rivalries and world wars of later centuries.

In England there were always links between political and religious dissenters, so a good number of British republicans, anti-slavery activists and working-class radicals attended the chapels and meetinghouses of the Methodists, Baptists, Quakers and other dissenting churches. By the time Thomas Paine was born, the civil disobedience of the early Quakers was hardly necessary. As E.P. Thompson wrote in “The Making of the English Working Class,” “They had prospered too much: had lost some of their most energetic spirits in successive emigrations to America: their hostility to State and authority had diminished. … ” A sterner spirit of dissent existed among the Baptists at that time, and found expression in John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress.” “And it is above all in Bunyan,” wrote Thompson, “that we find the slumbering Radicalism which was preserved through the 18th century and which breaks out again and again in the 19th. Pilgrim’s Progress is, with Rights of Man, one of the two foundation texts of the English working-class movement: Bunyan and Paine, with [William] Cobbett and [Robert] Owen, contributed most to the stock of ideas and attitudes which make up the raw material of the movement from 1790-1850.”

Eighteenth century artisan work was often highly skilled, and this stratum of the English working class was both numerous and literate. (Nineteenth century industrial production, by contrast, began with the immiseration and consequent illiteracy of many workers drawn from the traditional artisan class. The poorest rural and urban workers had, of course, always had to struggle for both wages and literacy.) Artisan labor and public association created relative independence from the ruling ideas of the ruling class. So did the printing presses, which published much of the news the ruling class saw fit to print, but also published an ever increasing number of republican and radical journals. Coffee, chocolate and tobacco, all part of the “free trade” of empire (widely extracted from slave labor), also kept the customers coming to the pubs, clubs and coffeehouses that multiplied in London, Paris and Philadelphia. Radicals, republicans and revolutionaries found much common ground in these material circumstances and public places.

Lockerdome Below Article
Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By ardee, July 12, 2009 at 6:02 am Link to this comment

I find this response , which extols the virtue of keeping the thoughts of both Burke and Paine rather an improvement over what I believed to be a previous effort to place Burke above Paine when discussing the mechanics and future of this nation’s governance.

I would offer a, rather lengthy to be sure, discussion of Burke, and also Gibbon’s opinions of him, in brief. I suggest beginning around p.552 or so…Peruse at leisure I think it worthy of your time.

Gibbon did criticize the French Revolution, but only late in life I think, and he was indeed an ally of Burke in his support of the monarchy and detraction of the “Rights of Man”. This only meant that he was a product of his time and ,like Burke, one who cherished his privilege.

He did have a way with words though hated public speaking.

‘the great speakers’, he wrote memorably, ‘fill me with despair, the bad ones with terror’.

Politically, he aligned himself with the conservative Edmund Burke’s rejection of the democratic movements of the time as well as with Burke’s dismissal of the “rights of man

Some more , for those who are interested in pursuing arcane knowledge:

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, July 11, 2009 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

So we see an extolling of a man, eloquent certainly, who supported monarchy, opposed the overthrow of one of the most decadent monarchies in all of Europe, and was considered insane by at least one of his peers.

Let me see how it works… if I can find at least one of Paine’s peers who wrote one sentence in a private letter saying that Paine is mad… perhaps in jest or over a disagreement or even for the sake of jealousy… then Paine becomes a zero!

My, what a powerful argument that is. But does ardee really trust Gibbon as an authority?  Because Gibbon agreed with Burke that the French revolution was bad. So if ardee appeals to Gibbon then we are back where we started and we need to dump Paine.

Better to argue the case on its merits. Which you seem to be capable of.

Burke was the father of conservatism to be sure, but the current crop thereof is unworthy of the name. Ill stick with Paine, as, I suspect, will most folks.

In the American Revolution we can keep both Burke and Paine, and yes Paine is nearer and dearer to American hearts.

In the French Revolution, Paine and Burke parted company and so do we, ardee. The American public in Paine’s day did not much like him for what he did in France. Much Later he was rehabilitated because of the good things he did in America. The French stuff was forgiven or forgotten. Which is typical good hearted America.

These days most people dont know Paine or Burke. Typical ignorant America.

By the way, ardee, i appreciate the effort.

Report this

By ardee, July 11, 2009 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment

“In London, Burke knew many of the leading intellectuals and artists, including Samuel Johnson, David Garrick, Oliver Goldsmith, and Joshua Reynolds. Edward Gibbon described him as, ‘the most eloquent and rational madman that I ever knew.’ wiki

So we see an extolling of a man, eloquent certainly, who supported monarchy, opposed the overthrow of one of the most decadent monarchies in all of Europe, and was considered insane by at least one of his peers. At the same time diminishing the greatest populist among the Founding Fathers of this nation.

Burke was the father of conservatism to be sure, but the current crop thereof is unworthy of the name. Ill stick with Paine, as , I suspect, will most folks.

Report this

By prosefights, July 11, 2009 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

“I am an American citizen and I wish to cooperate fully with your investigation.

I choose to exercise my Constitutional rights by refusing to speak with you or answer any questions until have consulted an attorney.

I am not consenting to any search of my person, property, vehicle or residence. If you have a properly executed warrant, please serve it.

If you have a tape or video recorder, please activate it at this time so that I may read this aloud for the record.”

Tom Tomasi distributed laminated card at concealed carry handgun class in Albuquerque, NM Saturday July 11, 2009.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, July 11, 2009 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie said: Having read around in anthro a bit, I have come to doubt that there is any ur-order of human society, or that human social orders are static for very long.

So true! And let us add that if the means to redress grievances exists in our current order, let us effect those changes which we desire.

Hence, every ordering is also a reordering

Before we get carried away, focus on the instant reordering of the French Revolution, which basically tore things to shreds. Thomas Paine thought it was hot stuff. He was wrong.

and the major question is whether that order is achieved with violence and coercion or by some other means.

ok. But coercion is a tricky word.

One which is perpetuated by violence is no less violent than one which is established by violence, although the violence may be hidden for a time by custom or fraud.

Coercion, custom, and fraud. Tricky words. I have to pay taxes which are spent on causes I dont believe in, but I pay them anyway. The subtle question is whether that small measure of coercion is acceptable, in the balance of the larger freedom that exists. As far as fraud is concerned we dont have to look far from your or my point of view to see it in our government.

As frustrating as it is, I cherish our form of government. I dont mind when Americans talk about revolutions, because usually they mean it metaphorically. They want to improve things in the current order. But when Leftists talk about heads rolling, and when Rightists wave their guns, i dont let that pass.

When both sides quote the other as if that is their excuse to start shooting and executing, i wonder how close we are to pulling the trigger and tearing ourselves apart. That is the legacy of Thomas Paine.

We need a little more Edmund Burke.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, July 8, 2009 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

Go to this address and scroll down to the section on the “Federal state” and it will tell you.

We could learn from the Swiss. Strange they call it a Federal state when it is more like a confederation there. All of Europe if not the world should follow them over us.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 8, 2009 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

Night Guant—could you expound on the “1948 Switzerland” “regrouping”? I dont know anything abut it….

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, July 7, 2009 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment

However in 1848 Switzerland did have a peaceful re-ordering of their society. Weirdly they used the USA as a model but it must have been from the 1776-1789 time period. We need such a re-ordering, but not along the fascist lines we are still going. Just as the Cabal continues in its mission to do to us.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 7, 2009 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

Very interesting answers, Anarcissie. Thank you.I agree with alot of it.

When I actually get complete answers on things, I like to think on them a bit, before coming to conclusions. Otherwise, I might type things I will later regret.

I will come back and also look elsewhere look for future posts…I am thinking about what you said about coercion and the necessary violence of the “state”...organization from the bottom up is not very romantic…but it would answer the question of “how? without violence”...

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 7, 2009 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

Having read around in anthro a bit, I have come to doubt that there is any ur-order of human society, or that human social orders are static for very long.  Hence, every ordering is also a reordering, and the major question is whether that order is achieved with violence and coercion or by some other means.  One which is perpetuated by violence is no less violent than one which is established by violence, although the violence may be hidden for a time by custom or fraud.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, July 7, 2009 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie said: The use of government to order societies is fatally tainted by the central fact of coercion, which has invariably emerged in one repugnant form or another regardless of people’s intentions, the most striking example being the rapid deterioration of the Russian Revolution into the USSR and Stalinism (but there are many others).

Well said, I would make one change to what you wrote. “The use of governement to order societies” should be “the use of government to reorder societies.”

Also, I would like to point out that Thomas Paine’s foil(Edmund Burke) would not have found the rapid deterioration of the Russian Revolution a surprise. I will try to express it simply: Any revolution that tears apart the relations and customs and financial workings of a society will soon find itself choosing between chaos and tyranny. Since humanity can not bear chaos for very long, and since there is always and everywhere a plentiful supply of would-be tyrants… the end result is loss of whatever measure of liberty and equality that the original society had in the first place.

That is Burke in a nutshell. To call Burke a defender of Kings and privileges(as the author did) is simplistic if not completely wrong, since Burke predicted the success of the American Revolution, doing so from the floor of the English Parliament.

More by Anarcissie:

  A process of elimination leads us to the principle that we can obtain peace, freedom and equality only by practicing peace, freedom, and equality, not later, after just one more war and one more state, but now.

I agree. Neither revolution nor war are good things.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 7, 2009 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

KDelphi—I don’t think there is any inherent conflict between freedom and complex organization.  However, “organize”, like “liberate”, often seems to mean “make people do what I want”, so I can understand the confusion.

I think you are right in saying that the United States may not have a very long time to continue as it is, so that a cooperative movement from the bottom might be too slow to get anything done before some sort of catastrophe renders the question of our social organization academic.  However, social movements and cultural changes have sometimes taken place very suddenly after a long period of gestation or somnolence.  (On a personal level, this process will probably be experienced by suddenly meeting people who have ideas similar to one’s own, after a long period of isolation.)

In any case, I don’t see any alternative.  The use of government to order societies is fatally tainted by the central fact of coercion, which has invariably emerged in one repugnant form or another regardless of people’s intentions, the most striking example being the rapid deterioration of the Russian Revolution into the USSR and Stalinism (but there are many others).  A process of elimination leads us to the principle that we can obtain peace, freedom and equality only by practicing peace, freedom, and equality, not later, after just one more war and one more state, but now.

Your questions are not stupid at all.  They represent significant problems.  Anyone who gave you a neat answer would be a fool or a con artist.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 6, 2009 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

Anar—I would like to take what youre advocating seriously.

But would “organizing” such a thing defeat its own purpose? Thats not very clear…

I am just trying to envision how this would happen…I mean, if it starts as grassroots, that could take a very long time, and, does the US have a very long time? I mean, as it exists.

If it happens in stages, what to do about immediate concerns, of course, the govt is doing nothing about them now,nothing that the people want done.

I am still mulling this over…you make some very strong points…how does it start?

What do you think of states? Would some secede? What would prevent the “govt” from just sicking the military (and militias) on everyone?

Might be stupid questions, but I am most unhappy with what is going on now and and open to hearing about alternatives…and you make such intelligent points, even when I dont agree.

Plus, you do not shout at anyone and, in my book, that calls for being listened to!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 5, 2009 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment

I believe that the transition to a stateless society would have to take place through the evolution of non-coercive relations, institutions and culture in parallel with the existing state—“building the new world in the shell of the old” as the IWW put it.  I know many people despise or deride this approach, but that is part of the sneaky strategy.  In any case every attempt to get rid of the state through violence (including the legalized state violence of government) has simply led to another state, often a worse one.

However, the kind of movement I am describing, if it became widespread, would probably have reformist effects on the liberal-capitalist social order.  For example, if people were engaged in forming medical-insurance and medical-care cooperatives, and were succeeding in replacing the capitalist private insurance system, the government would hasten to introduce a pseudo-single-payer system to keep people from getting off the leash.  Likewise, the spread of cooperative workplaces would force traditional capitalist corporations to modify their treatment of employees in order to retain them.  The ruling class know how to resist and eviscerate democratic attemts to make these changes through the government, but resisting a widepread, diffuse popular movement would be another matter.

Luckily for them, few take the sort of thing I am advocating seriously.

Report this

By ardee, July 5, 2009 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, July 5 at 4:43 pm #

ardee—I don’t think I have any good suggestions for the general reform of the government.

Maybe not, but you do post literate, intellectually stimulating and enjoyable efforts.You always make me think and heaven knows we don’t get near enough of that around here.
“When Jefferson wrote “All men are created equal” we know that he did not include women, Negro slaves, Indians, or propertyless persons of any category in the the notion of “men”.”
In fairness, Jefferson tried like hell to free his slaves and the Virginia Legislature went so far as to pass a special tax for those who would do so, thus making it impossible for Jefferson to afford such an action.

Report this

By Potent_Placebo, July 5, 2009 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A man who has both feet planted firmly in the air can be safely called a liberal as opposed to the conservative, who has both feet firmly planted in his mouth.
Jacques Barzun

Report this

By KDelphi, July 5, 2009 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie—I know, I just thought that Zinn had an interesting take on it that you dont hear very much.

Very interesting stuff…I have some trouble imagining how we could exist as the human race as “stateless”, but I will not say it cant be done.

Wouldnt there have to be some “steps in between”?

And what happens to those incapable of participating? If there is no law, what protects them?

I am just mulling over some of this…you never cease to get me thinking, I’ll give you that…

tell me, what do you think about this?


Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 5, 2009 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment

ardee—I don’t think I have any good suggestions for the general reform of the government.  I was just pointing out that the centralization of power is not an unalloyed good.  My activism concerns itself with encouraging people to construct alternative institutions and an alternative culture which will not require government, the class system, war, imperialism, traditional capitalism—it short, the state.  When the state becomes unnecessary it will disappear.  If such institutions and relations cannot be developed, then it seems inevitable that the resultant competition for state power will destroy most if not all of the human race.

KDelphi—I’m well aware of the class analysis of the American Revolution.  Liberalism, which is what that revolution embodied, is a curious amalgam of anarchism and state authority.  In general, the revolutionaries were bourgeois republicans whose ideal state was perhaps symbolized by the topless pyramid on the back of the dollar bill, where the summit of the pyramid, the monarchy, was replaced by God or Reason (the shining eye) or perhaps the authority of the collegial republic, but the hierarchy below the level of the ruling class—women, children, slaves, serfs, servants, employees, inferior tribes and races—are still subordinated.  Freedom above, slavery below, except the ruling class must remain sufficiently organized to perpetuate the slavery.  When Jefferson wrote “All men are created equal” we know that he did not include women, Negro slaves, Indians, or propertyless persons of any category in the the notion of “men”.  But as is turned out the idea of equality, once let loose, was not so easy to confine.  It is too bad Jefferson was not more seriously challenged in his own time, except by indignant monarchists.  Samuel Johnson’s “How is it we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?” stands almost alone, to my knowledge.

Report this

By felicity, July 5, 2009 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

I just learned something - Paine is ignored today? 

He certainly wasn’t when I was in school (‘36-‘54.)  In fact he was assigned reading; his views were discussed and re-discussed; he was credited with inspiring the man-on-the-street to revolt against the injustices being imposed by the Brits.

The fact that he’s ‘ignored’ today may indicate that this nation is slowly dying of root rot - we have turned the world’s richest, freest country into a decaying plutocratic, militarized rogue state.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 5, 2009 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

anarcissie—I am certainly no expert on Paine…I wasnt sure whether you meant, “did Paine resolve it ” in his mind, (accepting the authors’ conclusion) or did the author resolve it?
I still say, in both cases (even if Paine wouldnt have called it SD) would be “no”.

Here is another viewpoint, from Howard Zinn, on whether the “Am Revolution” was worth fighting at all..

“...Canada is independent of England, isn’t it? I think so. Not a bad society. Canadians have good health care. They have a lot of things we don’t have. They didn’t fight a bloody revolutionary war. Why do we assume that we had to fight a bloody revolutionary war to get rid of England?...

...Who actually gained from that victory over England? It’s very important to ask about any policy, and especially about war: Who gained what? And it’s very important to notice differences among the various parts of the population. That’s one thing were not accustomed to in this country because we don’t think in class terms. We think, “Oh, we all have the same interests.” For instance, we think that we all had the same interests in independence from England. We did not have all the same interests….

...It was not all the common people getting together to fight against England. They had a very hard time assembling an army. They took poor guys and promised them land. They browbeat people and, oh yes, they inspired people with the Declaration of Independence. It’s always good, if you want people to go to war, to give them a good document and have good words: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, when they wrote the Constitution, they were more concerned with property than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You should take notice of these little things…

...We were a class society from the beginning. America started off as a society of rich and poor, people with enormous grants of land and people with no land. And there were riots, there were bread riots in Boston, and riots and rebellions all over the colonies, of poor against rich, of tenants breaking into jails to release people who were in prison for nonpayment of debt. There was class conflict. We try to pretend in this country that we’re all one happy family. We’re not…”

Read more at :

(If it will post—if not its dandelion salad dot com)

Report this

By trekwell, July 5, 2009 at 9:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“And, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. -July 4, 1776-The Declaration of Independence”
Dear America
you just go ahead and try it and see how long into prison your government puts you. scoundrels/politicians

Report this

By ardee, July 5, 2009 at 5:39 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, July 4 at 10:31 pm #

Now the army is well-fed indeed.

Oh yes, and so are a veritable legion of special interests as well. I know that we both are very aware of the corruption that has subverted our system of governance, why else are we here excepting to seek justice in all things political?

But justice as we see it to be, aye there’s the rub.

You would make changes by reducing or eliminating the power and size of the Federal Government I surmise. I believe that corruption and greed are not combated by making something smaller, or for that matter, larger. One makes government responsible to the will of the people by exercising the power of the people to force legislators to toe that line.

If you suggest that a confederacy is a better way to run a nation than is our federation then you omit the obvious , corruption locally is harder to root out than when it is on a national scale, much better hidden than when the eyes of the nation are all focussed upon it.

OK so that last sentence makes one think that corruption seems rather accepted, regardless of its level or scope.But consider fifty separate corrupt state legislators with the power that the corrupt federal legislature now has…..a harder mess to control, no?

I believe in what the Founders wrought. I still enjoy reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s Preamble. I thumb my dogeared copy of the Federalist Papers quite often, in fact it sits beside me now. So, to make radical change to that system seems to me a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

No, far better that the people arise and tell our elected representatives how tired we are of not being represented by them. We do need change, but not fundamental change, only subtle and carefully scripted change, such as;

end the practice of lobbying

Obama, in another seemingly meaningless promise among many, spoke to this very subject when he once called for a change to the rules for former legislators to assume roles as lobbyists.

campaign finance reform

It is no accident that it costs hundreds of millions to ascend to the White House, and a few score millions to become a Senator. It keeps the ‘riffraff’ out, to be sure, and continues the iron clad control of the two party system over our political lives. Make the candidate come to the people for tens and twenties and fifties. Make the media give free air time and print space to the candidates, a small price surely.

Instant Runoff Voting

IRV is an idea whose time is coming. It will make the ascendancy of third party members to the legislature easier and help to break the stranglehold of corporate control the Duopoly now enjoys…..

Can you add to this list, or enumerate why we should more dramatically alter our form of government?

Report this
CJ's avatar

By CJ, July 5, 2009 at 12:06 am Link to this comment

We’re by now Oprahfied-Choprahfied. Disneyfied, imagineered. Jacksonianed too just lately. (Michaeled, not Andrewed; Michaeled actually far better if Andrewed is alternative.) All just so much pretending to liberty (indeed including that pretended to online) of which Paine never merely dreamed. He was one of authentic, EARTHLY, HUMANLY, ENLIGHTENEDLY RATIONAL spirit. Just as much as of flesh-and-blood who sacrificed all to some purpose as he lived through—while also aiding and abetting—two revolutions. The first political, the second social. The second far more dangerous to life and limb. Tucker tells of chalk-marked cell on second occasion. (Maybe there is a God.)

For all of what he lived and thought and wrote, he’s been ignored. What a genuinely brave heart (first) and mind (first-rate). We have no serious idea of his courage. We might—on this anniversary of Declaration of what he had the courage to live and THEN speak—be more thankful for the “prickly and plebeian.” For the “outsider.” Would we really were celebrating liberty of which Paine knew perfectly well could be ours if we had but the courage to reach out and take hold of it. He assumed we all had his courage.

He thought that if he had it we all had it. (He WAS a common man, profoundly aware of the fact.) But…maybe not. Not so far. Maybe he was wrong about that—then and even more so since then.

Thomas Paine is one of my four or five real heroes. A human being of the most remarkable humanity. (Keep Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, even more so, Adams and Washington. Don’t need ‘em for nothin’. All twits next to Paine. Never mind Burke, really dead and gone, unless you’re George Will or Sarah Palin. Not that Palin ever read Burke. Nor Reagan, though Palin probably did read or at least hear Reagan when he cited Paine. Absurdly.)

Hell with monuments, nationalistic crying sessions, as just this past week and upcoming for pop “icon.” Paine’s words still ring two centuries on. His words will always ring for the never completely liberated, as for truth of humanity that humanity won’t likely ever quite grab onto. In, or out, of sense.

Paine was (obviously) A pain. A relentless polemicist. My kinda human being. When I hear or read of “bipartisanship,” I think of Paine. Rather, I imagine him asking—in vernacular of today—“SAY WHAT!? ARE YOU INSANE!?” To which we’d be forced to answer with, “Ah…Umm? No? Yes? Maybe? Possibly? Okay, definitely maybe.” (By standard he helped set intellectually morally.)

Wherever Paine’s bones, I see him, just here before me, where no pol, no statesman, no churchman and no scholar could ever spot him. Only we “mechanics” can see him—if/when willing to do so. Which is as it should be.

I suppose GOOD they still don’t know Paine (not really), such that he remains underground radical.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 4, 2009 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment

‘The continental congress was simply hamstrung in its inability to do anything at all. Every decision, every expenditure had to be ratified by the states, far to unwieldy a situation to work. Washington despaired of even feeding the continental army because the system took forever to obtain the necessary funds.’

Now the army is well-fed indeed.

Report this

By ardee, July 4, 2009 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, July 4 at 12:57 pm

“I had wished that our country had taken a different turn than to the coup that gave us the Federal Republic over the confederation.”

The continental congress was simply hamstrung in its inability to do anything at all. Every decision, every expenditure had to be ratified by the states, far to unwieldy a situation to work. Washington despaired of even feeding the continental army because the system took forever to obtain the necessary funds.

Obviously our government does not work for the best interests of the people currently, but to be critical of the system itself may be beside the point rather then be the point.

As to intellect, far better to know little or nothing and be you than to know everything and be OzarkMichael!

Report this

By shemp333, July 4, 2009 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment

What a great day today the 4th of July is…  Celebrate it, as it should be.  For the time our ancestors fought, and won for all of us our freedom.  Even if since then many have fought to end the freedoms they gave us.  May the ideas of that time never be forgotten.  I will always love the ideas of true America.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, July 4, 2009 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

The first sign of an advancing intelligence is when they acknowledge they have ignorance. I have a great many empty spaces myself. [My cup is always empty.] It is the ones who think they know-it-all that are a danger to themselves and everyone they come in contact with. The information ocean is just too vast for any one person to be so comprehensive. That is one of the important reasons why we work together and have a variety of skills to complement each other. Just let us not fall into the robotic biological caste system of the insects and specialize to the Nth degree.

I had wished that our country had taken a different turn than to the coup that gave us the Federal Republic over the confederation. What if Thomas Paine had been not only involved in our gov’t but served in the various administrations and maybe even president of the Congress himself? I must go to fiction for that. My own or others to do so. Some of L. Neil Smith’s early SiFi got me interested in Libertarian alternates. Though I am more of a Mutual Aid Anarchist myself.

I recommend reading all of Paine’s material. Much of it is on line. Forget Glen Beck the wannabe.

Report this

By ardee, July 4, 2009 at 9:55 am Link to this comment

For heavens sake, use a napkin….wink

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 4, 2009 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

I never need to feign ignorance.  My cup runneth over.

Report this

By ardee, July 4, 2009 at 5:10 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, July 3 at 11:54 pm #

Sorry if I appeared to impune your motives, anarcissie, but I know you to be a sharp cookie and thought your ignorance of the subject feigned.

Paine was a pain, even to the newly minted govt he helped create, and was almost allowed to languish in jail in France. After narrowly escaping jail in England, for his “Rights of Man” denouncing Monarchy, he promptly got arrested by the Jacobins , where he began “The Age of Reason” while incarcerated there. Except for the intervention of Ben Franklin he might very well have remained in jail or worse, faced Madam L’Guillotine.

I think it worth your time to read more about this firebrand who made his life about ending hereditary monarchy and abusive governments and sooner or later alienated everyone, including his former best friend, George Washington.

I think he is ignored today precisely because his positions then mirror what should be our positions today…...

Report this

By C. Curtis Dillon, July 4, 2009 at 3:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The greatness of our ideals (as opposed to our reality) may be that the true brains behind them were not men of money and influence but individuals of more simple means.  Franklin, Paine and even Roger Sherman appear to have been very influential in creating what we now call our democracy.  Imagine how different we would be had John Adams and Madison prevailed?

As for the question about the lack of attention to Paine: perhaps it is because both political parties are inclined to wish his words silenced in the current corporate-dominated environment.  He speaks of liberty and revolution which are contrary to what our rulers want us thinking.  They have worked very hard to make us a nation of sheep and have, for the most part, succeeded.  Note the massive coverage of Michael Jackson’s death.  We have become a nation of idiots who survive on the most mundane and stupid of stories.  Dumb down the schools, overwhelm us with pop culture and feed us a constant drivel of false and misleading stories on “news” networks like Fox.  That is the process by which we have been marginalized from the political process.  We resisted, momentarily, with Obama but I already sense the growing frustration with the rhetorical vs. reality of this man which will lead to an even greater retreat from involvement in our political processes.

I only hope that this frustration can be channeled into more active involvement.  It is one thing to vote ... it is another to be willing to march day after day and to demand change.  Can we as a nation find the courage, energy and motivation to once again wage war on our masters?  Can we give up our relative comfort for the uncertainty that a true revolution would bring?  Or are we so numb that the forces of evil have already won?  I wonder.

Report this

By Andrew Gibbons, July 3, 2009 at 9:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is very informative, it puts a lot of Common Sense into context for me.  I tried to derive as much of Paine’s ideology I could and the reasoning; but It was difficult to understand who and what this Burke character was doing when he often referenced him.
As a high school student, the foundation imposed on me about Paine was his revolutionary contribution to society during the late 18th century and that masses were drawn to his righting many a like agreed with his points.  Thank you for sharing this information, because my complacency got the best of me, and until now I lost my interest in Paine. 
Although I wish there was an honest interoperation of Jeffersons’ life, since today, since just moments ago, is “The 4th of July”. This celebratory day is such bullshit to me.  I don’t believe a load of ignoramuses should be idolizing a day in which they know little about.  This day marks the distribution of another vitriolic document that supports an extreme view on the governing of land.  One that should be done by the people, and when the end of the will of those that govern(the people) had been corrupt:it is the job of the people to either change it or make a new.  Only if those who are sipping on their beers and watching fireworks explode in the sky knew and cared about their “freedom”, all of the despotic rulings from the bush presidency would be reversed at a seismic rate.  After all, the president was never intended to have such flagrant and supreme power.  “Read about the history of the place that we live in;
And stop letting corporate news tell lies to your children” —Immortal Technique

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 3, 2009 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

No, my question was not rhetorical.  Scott Tucker and Thom Hartmann both seem to take Paine as being some kind of social democrat.  I assume these guys are not kidding around and know what they’re talking about, or at least think they do.  It is true that Paine lived in very different times, but you can find all sorts of modern political theories popping up in the past—as theory, anyway.  And as I said I haven’t read Paine exhaustively, so I thought I might have missed something.  No?

Report this

By ardee, July 3, 2009 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, July 3 at 6:53 pm #

I do not believe you can compare the social democrats of the nineteenth century with those of the twentieth frankly much less to an eighteenth century revolutionary.

I suspect that the best one could do is a comparison of what the two had in common, which I tried ( apparently rather clumsily) in my preceding post.

Paine, a man who had a hand in two major revolutions, compared to modern social democrats who believe in a peaceful political solution to the ills of their govt is like comparing apples to oranges so to speak. The world Paine sought to change was one of hereditary monarchies and the world of today is quite a bit different being ruled by corporations instead of bloodlines.

A better question is what is the importance of Thom Paine to the American revolution and its direction and why is he so ignored today. He might perhaps view our business world as a modern day monarchy, I know that I do.

I might also suggest that your question is a rhetorical one and your motive not exactly the acquisition of knowledge, heh?

Report this

By lester Shepherd, July 3, 2009 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Ozark:  Arkansas boy?  Ummmmmm.  Red state?  A Milton Friedman freak?

The best line of this discussion: ” The French revolution was a partial failure because the guillotine was taken out of service FAR too soon, before the aristocracy and the rich were ALL dead.”

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 3, 2009 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

‘Always asking the hard questions, huh? ...’

I don’t think it’s such a hard question for you Paine experts.  I myself have not read much of his stuff; what I have read seemed like the traditional liberal doctrines of his era.  (Some people say he, and not Jefferson, really wrote the Declaration of Independence.)  I was generally surprised to hear that he was also a social democrat or welfare-statist and, as I said, wondered if so how he reconciled the government-is-evil view of classical liberals with the ardent faith of modern social democrats that government is good, and the bigger the better.  Maybe he didn’t; the political literature of the 18th and 19th centuries doesn’t always bring its ideas for improvement, progress and revolution together with practical considerations of how the changes are to be actually carried out and maintained once they’re in place.  If he didn’t, though, it is something of a stretch to call him a social democrat, just as it’s something of a stretch to call Marx a Marxist or a Communist.

So tell me.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, July 3, 2009 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

I would like to say to Mr Tucker, the author of the article, that to minimize the insights of Mr Paine’s worthy opponent(Edmund Burke) does Paine a diservice.

Stand the two men against each other in a more dynamic way and you can see the power of two great minds and two conflicting philosophies. Do not make Burke into a straw man, it belittles Paine.

Yes, Paine was for liberty first and foremost. But Burke was more practical, and more insightful about human nature. Burke pointed out the weaknesses and future collapse of the French Revolution, while Paine married himself to that Revolution, and suffered for it when Burke’s predictions came true. (Which by the way was very admirable. Instead of just giving an opinion, Paine got involved and nearly died.)

Also, do not make a straw man out of John Adams either. His remark about the “Age of Paine” at the end of the article is very interesting and possibly very insightful(I mean insightful of old John Adams! certainly not the author, who was more interested in making Paine into a prophet and martyr).

Despite the overflowing intellectuality present, the praise for Tom Paine by both the author and the posters here is shallow. It is all written without the dialectic which would really show Paine’s greatness as it was locked in struggle gainst opposing great minds and ideas.

Of course the danger of that would be that you might see current political conservatives as having some valid points today, and worse yet you might realize a few weak points of your own philosophy. You might then proceed to learn and grow…

Ah. What was I saying? What was I thinking? After all, this is Truthdig! Where Leftists post cutting edge thoughts like:

The French revolution was a partial failure because the guillotine was taken out of service FAR too soon, before the aristocracy and the rich were ALL dead.

Which completely negates not only Burke but also the best of Paine. 


Report this

By ardee, July 3, 2009 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, July 3 at 1:58 pm #

Always asking the hard questions, huh?

Historically, social democratic parties advocated socialism in the strict sense, achieved by class struggle. In the early 20th century, however, a number of socialist and labor parties rejected revolution and other traditional teachings of Marxism and went on to take more moderate positions, which came to characterize modern social democracy. These positions often include support for a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, usually resulting in the form of a mixed economy. This differs from traditional socialism, which aims to replace the capitalist system entirely with a new economic system. Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism. [Can be found at Wiki]

Perhaps Paine might have rejected the political solutions offered by modern social democrats, he was, after all, a real revolutionary.

For those interested here is Thom Hartmann on Thom Paine:

His critics notwithstanding, Thomas Paine was in many ways the father of modern liberalism, and thus one of the most important of the founders of what both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson referred to as that “liberal” experiment, the United States of America.

Liberals, after all, founded our nation. They were skeptical of the power of any institution - be it corporate (the Boston Tea Party was an anti-globalization protest against the world’s largest transnational corporation, the East India Company), religious (Ben Franklin left Massachusetts for Philadelphia during his childhood in part because they were still hanging witches in the outlying regions), or governmental (the “kingly oppressions” such as the power of a king to make war, referred to by Madison and later quoted by Lincoln). It wasn’t FDR who first seriously promoted the progressive income tax in the USA: it was Thomas Paine. It wasn’t LBJ who invented anti-poverty programs by introducing Medicare, housing assistance, and food-stamp programs: Thomas Paine proposed versions of all of these. It wasn’t Jack Kennedy who first talked seriously about international disarmament: it was Thomas Paine. And Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t the first American to talk about the “living wage,” or ways that corporate “maximum wage” wink-and-nod agreements could be broken up: it was Thomas Paine. Even Woodrow Wilson’s inheritance tax, designed to prevent family empires from taking over our nation, was the idea of Thomas Paine, as was the suggestion for old-age pensions as part of a social safety net known today as Social Security.

Paine thought that the best way to build a strong democracy was to tax the wealthy to give the poor bootstraps by which they could pull themselves up. He proposed helping out young families with the expense of raising children (a forerunner to our income tax exemptions for children), a fund to provide housing and food for the poor (a forerunner to housing vouchers and food stamps), and a reliable and predictable pension for all workers in their old age (a forerunner to Social Security). He also suggested that all nations should reduce their armaments by 90 percent, to ensure world peace. Summarizing, Paine noted:

“When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am the friend of its happiness: when these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government.”

Report this

By HJR2, July 3, 2009 at 11:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

History seems to be full of great men and women who have given us our world and are then erased and forgotten and then those who have stolen it back and are called great famous heroes. The truth will stand alone unknown among a horde of cowering liars.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 3, 2009 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie’s question..I think that, it bascially says that he didnt. Of course, Socialist Democracy did not exist at the time, and, may be said to not exist now, much as a Democratic Republic does not really exit.
Does someone know that answer to that question, btw?

But, I have seen so many “new” Socialist forms, often combined with Libertarian, or Anarchism…I keep reading them, but, often find that they dont seem to have alot in commonm, except to say that what “we” are doing now (the entire planet) is not working..

Report this

By alli, July 3, 2009 at 11:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Scott you are an excellent writer.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 3, 2009 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

So, how did Paine reconcile his suspicion of government and authority with what we are now calling social democracy?

Report this

By eileen fleming, July 3, 2009 at 10:11 am Link to this comment

“Soon after I had published the pamphlet “Common Sense” [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion… The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”-Tom Paine

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights… [and] to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

And, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. -July 4, 1776-The Declaration of Independence

“Love is not the starving of whole populations. Love is not the bombardment of open cities. Love is not killing…...Our manifesto is the Sermon on the Mount, which means that we will try to be peacemakers.” -Dorothy Day


Report this

By David Bonney, July 3, 2009 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“If we regard those founding republicans as figures in a fairy tale, then we might as well bury the whole republic and build a marble monument inscribed with these words: Once Upon A Time.”

Start digging. Then recall Michelangelo to do the marble-work.

Report this

By Fred Lacher, July 3, 2009 at 10:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Apropos the lack of memorials to Paine:
there is a small and life sized statue of Paine in Bordentown NJ, where he lived for a number of years.

It was dedicated to his memory, not for his writings and thought, but for his residence in that small, charming town. I lived there until my retirement 5 years ago, and was always happy to see this statue.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, July 3, 2009 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

And now the reich wing has taken him to their boosum in the form of Glen Beck and his own “Common Sense” a much abused term these days. He has lately taking great pains to not only invoke Paine but decry any stance on violent revolution. I wonder why?

We have had and still have many pamphleteers these days and over the decades. Will they be able to help now? Can we stop the destruction of the republic from becoming a full fledged empire as T. Roosvelt wanted? What our aristocracy craves in their hidden heart of hearts?

Thomas Paine was either ignored or vilified in this country up until 1890 when he was rehabilitated in many eyes. To me he is certainly one of the closest things to a hero I will acknowledge. Along with Goldman, Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Chomsky and many others that I find inspiration and relevant information I concur with.

The question is without information in this information age can we be organized enough to stop the march to fascism and theocracy?

Report this

By billp37, July 3, 2009 at 8:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

——- Forwarded Message——-
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:19:01 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: [Fwd: Fw: (no subject)]

——- Folks - truer words never spoken - now what?

Dear Friends, won’t you please listen to this carefully?

This guy’s video on youtube has been so popular that Obama called him personally. He said that he was very disturbed with the video and invited him to the White House. Obama also said he wanted the White House to handle the Press and not to talk about the video or the White House visit. That’s interesting.

Watch it now. This may be the best six minutes invested in your future

You may have to turn your Sound Control up some.

Report this

By anomar, July 3, 2009 at 8:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Paine has long been my favorite Founding Father.  I learned a lot from this essay.  It is wonderful to know that another of my favorites, William Blake, knew and advised old Tom.  I knew about his funeral and the abysmal turnout.  Paine should be the subject of a mini-series that knocks down the jams.  John Adams indeed.

Report this

By Big B, July 3, 2009 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

One must wonder, will we as a people ever live up to the great expectations charged to us by Paine? Will we ever live up to our creedo? Will all people ever truely be created as equals?

Not in this version of america.

We started out with a ruling aristocracy, and over the last 200 years or so, we have built a modern day feudal system to maintain that privledged class. The corporations have turned the working class into 21st century serfs. And much like the devils greatest trick convincing us that he doesn’t exist, the corporate aristocracy and the leadership class they have created for us, have convinced the working class masses that they can also become powerful and wealthy masters of the universe through hard work and dedication alone.


In honor of Paine, I believe I will go to the store and buy a powerball ticket. I will need that annuity to pay for my blood pressure meds in about 20 years.

Report this

By artie, July 3, 2009 at 6:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I read and reread him, one of the greatist Patriots in all of recorded history.

Report this

By shemp333, July 3, 2009 at 4:34 am Link to this comment

Great article about The Man who put the American Revolution into overdrive.  I love reading the exact same 2 books mentioned by Paul_GA.  My other 2 favorites are The Age of Reason and Rights of Man.  The Age of Reason is such a powerful book.  A complete rebute of Christianity and sectional breakdown of the Bible itself.  All from the point of view that to believe in that terrible book is true immorality.  Brilliant reading.  I hope to see more about our friend Thomas Paine.  A brother to us all.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, July 3, 2009 at 4:32 am Link to this comment

“The Age of Reason”...Still Waiting.
“We the People” are still trying to achieve the goals of ‘All men are created Equal’ with ‘inalienable Rights’ to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness”.
The ‘Noble’ and Merchant Class still controlling Politics with their monatary means to corruption and oppression.
Religion being used as the moral justification for the immorality and repressiveness of those Upper classes.
Oh Mr. Paine over 200 yrs and we are still no closer now than we were then… But instead of a Family Crest, WE have Logos. Instead of the Vatican or Church of England, We have Evangleical Megachurches. Where ever your bones may be now,I have no doubt that you are spinning in your grave.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, July 3, 2009 at 4:20 am Link to this comment

“Common Sense” and “Crisis #1” are my two favorite Paine works—plus, you can download the complete works of Thomas Paine (in two volumes) in PDF form from the Ludwig von Mises Institute! Go for it, friends; these ARE the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls!

Report this
godistwaddle's avatar

By godistwaddle, July 3, 2009 at 4:15 am Link to this comment

The French revolution was a partial failure because the guillotine was taken out of service FAR too soon, before the aristocracy and the rich were ALL dead.

Report this
godistwaddle's avatar

By godistwaddle, July 3, 2009 at 4:13 am Link to this comment

Paine was a real revolutionary.  The “Founders” were men of wealth and privilege who wished to remove a colony from the orbit of those who could impinge upon their right to keep slavery, institute wage slavery, and wage predatory captitalism upon the poor. They legitimized all of this in the holy Constitution, the credo of the Property Party.

Report this

By ardee, July 3, 2009 at 3:27 am Link to this comment

Not so odd really, that the greatest revolutionary of them all is ignored by the very nation he named and helped create. The way he is dismissed points eloquently to the myth that is the United States of America.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide