Who said it better?

[Okeefenokee]

No nation can make a declaration against the validity of long-contracted debts so disinterestedly as we, since we do not owe a shilling which may not be paid with ease principal and interest, within the time of our own lives. Establish the principle also in the new law to be passed for protecting copy rights and new inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19. instead of 14. years

[a line entirely faded]

an instance the more of our taking reason for our guide instead of English precedents, the habit of which fetters us, with all the political herecies of a nation, equally remarkable for it's encitement from some errors, as long slumbering under others. I write you no news, because when an occasion occurs I shall write a separate letter for that.

Context.

Most certainly. It’s a faint echo at best, and beyond that basic sentiment there’s not much there, but those lines of "The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind another“ and “the earth belonging to the living” was what reminded me of that bit from Marx.

What an interestingly dinner conversation that would’ve been. I imagine they wouldn’t have seen eye to eye on much of anything, but it’s kind of interesting to consider.

If you put all the superfluous parts aside, and just look at the conclusion, it's a letter about property rights. I haven't read the Marx segment yet, but I wager he wasn't arguing for individual property rights.

[Speaker to Animals]

Though I think Marx is commenting strictly on the weight of history in binding the present and Jefferson is speaking mainly about stewardship... is the sentiment essentially the same?

"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living' . . .."


“Men make their own history, but they do not make the history that they choose; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.“

Marx's main mistake was viewing every aspect of human life through the lens of economics. He correctly identified core flaws in capitalism, and was quite right in describing it as anarchic (all that is solid melts in air, all that is sacred is profaned etc), but his solutions to these problems were horrific when put into practice. This is where Marxism veers off from Jeffersonian ideals. Jefferson would have been aghast at sacrificing the liberty of current Americans for a hypothetical future generation which could be far better, whereas Marx would not have blinked, and would have viewed this sort of sentimentality with contempt. Marx and Jefferson correctly observe that we are always tied to historical circumstance, but Marx wanted to level current society to eradicate those circumstances. In my opinion, his remedy was far more revolutionary and costly than Jefferson's blood of tyrants quote, especially when you see how his ideas were used in the real world. Idk, its late and I'm probably not making much sense tbh.

I think his main mistake was historicism. It's the same mistake the SJWs make when they talk about being "on the right side of history". It's a religious notion that history has some direction. I am religious and I can see it for what it is. Yet from my religious standpoint, that direction is one of constant war until evil almost wins before being overthrown. It's a different outlook that doesn't see us as progressing towards some goal, but constantly battling degeneracy and evil until the final battle. So Christians don't get all bent out of shape when we lose an election or battle, because we don't see history like Marxists do.

The other part about it that really hurt them in the previous century was that this historicist mindset leads to predictions that inevitably do not pan out, which weakens this ideology emotionally while the only way the thing can even be defended is through emotion and exploitation of charity. They can't just rationally explain what happened, because it's a matter of faith to them.

[Zero]

I think this is the original letter that quote appeared in. I’ll read it more closely later - you are making it too easy to procrastinate on my grad work

It’s pretty long, so I won’t quote the whole thing, but a quick scan suggests his purpose was less a discussion on property rights, and more justification for revolutionary change. Dunno, need to back and read all three letters in more detail when I have more time.

Sorry, I seem to have hosted a party I was thinly prepared for.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... e/ch01.htm

[GloryofGreece]

I find their lack of gratitude for tradition, memory, and history disturbing.

Perhaps you feel they’re treating history unfairly?

Its how most so called radicals view history/tradition. They throw the baby out with the bath water. They have no gratitude for the organization, structure, and yes innovations before them. Hence, they feel its right to burn it down.

[Zero]

I find their lack of gratitude for tradition, memory, and history disturbing.

Perhaps you feel they’re treating history unfairly?

Its how most so called radicals view history/tradition. They throw the baby out with the bath water. They have no gratitude for the organization, structure, and yes innovations before them. Hence, they feel its right to burn it down.

Oh, I thought you were making a Star Wars reference, hence my reply.

[GloryofGreece]

Perhaps you feel they’re treating history unfairly?

Its how most so called radicals view history/tradition. They throw the baby out with the bath water. They have no gratitude for the organization, structure, and yes innovations before them. Hence, they feel its right to burn it down.

Oh, I thought you were making a Star Wars reference, hence my reply.

The Star Wars reference is great and works just as well. The meaning is there. Darth Vader had a point.

[Zero]

True enough.