3 ms·

also worth a read is "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States" by Charles Beard which examines how the personal financial interests

also worth a read is "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States" by Charles Beard which examines how the personal financial interests of the founding fathers shaped the constitution

johntfella 6y ago
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll add this to my list. I'm trying to justify purchasing The Complete Anti-Federalist by Herbert J. Storing on Google bookstore which costs $340. Seems pretty steep, however it looks like its the most authoritative source on the anti-federalist papers.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Charles A Beard also did one on US history as well which was eye opening for myself. It's incredibly interesting how he dismantles a lot of our facade of a history into simple bourgeoisie economics. He makes everything modern conservative pundits preach in regards to the founding fathers as just pure lies. I mean look how fast the Anti-Federalists were stamped out! The revolution was purely a fabrication of rights stripped from the industrialist estates. The average worker wasn't as affected as much. But they were easily riled that's for sure. Everything in the early days of the US was just radical libertarians and aristocrats just seeking their own self interest. Since the majority of the US was still an agricultural economy based off of preceding thought surrounding Physiocracy, the system at the time was implemented far differently than it is today. Now it is on a full-scale industrialized level, but with a system devised for farmers, artisans, and aristocrats. The US system though will never change as long as it's the global hegemon. Much like the British Empire, Roman Empire, Qi Dynasty, and Holy Roman Empire; these major players never ended up reforming until their total collapse. As much as anybody hates to see it, that is the only way for this system to be revised. There is a big pie for many to take a piece of in the US. It's why there are minimal united for change.
hajile 6y ago
Beard's book is simply a proto-communist critique of the US government (in the form of the Realty vs the Personalty). Most of this book simply attempt to assert malice where other explanations are plentiful. For example, he asserts that the 3 branches were intended to make the country less of a democracy. Yes, the goal was a republic instead of a democracy because (as spelled out in the Federalist papers) pure democracies always wind up persecuting minorities (2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner) and all historical democracies up to that point fell apart rather quickly. Limiting the power of any one person or cabal was of prime importance. Beard rejects all these reasons as essentially true, but made up excuses (though history is not on his side). Instead, he claims it was to protect them from being overthrown by the masses. He asserts that the constitution was an economic document. Of course this is true. It was trying to convince 13 countries to become one, unified country. It tried to guarantee it wouldn't interfere with things in the Bill of Rights. Once the constitution has established that it can't butt into people's moral business, all that is left is economics. They set down rules to keep one state from oppressing another, rules for foreign commerce, and left internal issues to the states. Beard doesn't say how the rules could be better, he just asserts that because most of the writers had money, they must have had nefarious reasons for establishing those rules. Here's another example. The constitution says the US should pay it's debts. Beard asserts this is because Washington loaned money and wanted it back. Sure, this could be true, but it is also true that small, new countries guaranteeing to pay back money to lenders is paramount to securing loans in the first place. Realty were his creation that was anyone without large amounts of liquid assets (this included land owners). Personalty were people with liquid assets and manufacturing power. He claims the realty were entirely suppressed by the personalty during the constitution's creation. He doesn't provide much hard evidence aside from very generic things like he thinks it was hard to collect farmer's votes or opinion pieces in various newspapers that were anti-federalist. The federalists asserted that if the states didn't unite, they would slowly devolve into a bunch of little, squabbling countries that would be played against each other or outright conquered by the European powers. He has no answer. He claimed repression of the realty, but many of the county's most famous people rose from nothing. In fact, the upward mobility of the US has exceeded every other country since it's inception. This contradicts his claim, yet he has no answer. I would go so far as to say that he fails to justify any of his smears and that history both before and after 1913 has not been on his side.

johntfella 6y ago

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll add this to my list. I'm trying to justify purchasing The Complete Anti-Federalist by Herbert J. Storing on Google bookstore which costs $340. Seems pretty steep, however it looks like its the most authoritative source on the anti-federalist papers.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

Charles A Beard also did one on US history as well which was eye opening for myself. It's incredibly interesting how he dismantles a lot of our facade of a history into simple bourgeoisie economics. He makes everything modern conservative pundits preach in regards to the founding fathers as just pure lies. I mean look how fast the Anti-Federalists were stamped out! The revolution was purely a fabrication of rights stripped from the industrialist estates. The average worker wasn't as affected as much. But they were easily riled that's for sure. Everything in the early days of the US was just radical libertarians and aristocrats just seeking their own self interest. Since the majority of the US was still an agricultural economy based off of preceding thought surrounding Physiocracy, the system at the time was implemented far differently than it is today. Now it is on a full-scale industrialized level, but with a system devised for farmers, artisans, and aristocrats. The US system though will never change as long as it's the global hegemon. Much like the British Empire, Roman Empire, Qi Dynasty, and Holy Roman Empire; these major players never ended up reforming until their total collapse. As much as anybody hates to see it, that is the only way for this system to be revised. There is a big pie for many to take a piece of in the US. It's why there are minimal united for change.

hajile 6y ago

Beard's book is simply a proto-communist critique of the US government (in the form of the Realty vs the Personalty). Most of this book simply attempt to assert malice where other explanations are plentiful. For example, he asserts that the 3 branches were intended to make the country less of a democracy. Yes, the goal was a republic instead of a democracy because (as spelled out in the Federalist papers) pure democracies always wind up persecuting minorities (2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner) and all historical democracies up to that point fell apart rather quickly. Limiting the power of any one person or cabal was of prime importance. Beard rejects all these reasons as essentially true, but made up excuses (though history is not on his side). Instead, he claims it was to protect them from being overthrown by the masses. He asserts that the constitution was an economic document. Of course this is true. It was trying to convince 13 countries to become one, unified country. It tried to guarantee it wouldn't interfere with things in the Bill of Rights. Once the constitution has established that it can't butt into people's moral business, all that is left is economics. They set down rules to keep one state from oppressing another, rules for foreign commerce, and left internal issues to the states. Beard doesn't say how the rules could be better, he just asserts that because most of the writers had money, they must have had nefarious reasons for establishing those rules. Here's another example. The constitution says the US should pay it's debts. Beard asserts this is because Washington loaned money and wanted it back. Sure, this could be true, but it is also true that small, new countries guaranteeing to pay back money to lenders is paramount to securing loans in the first place. Realty were his creation that was anyone without large amounts of liquid assets (this included land owners). Personalty were people with liquid assets and manufacturing power. He claims the realty were entirely suppressed by the personalty during the constitution's creation. He doesn't provide much hard evidence aside from very generic things like he thinks it was hard to collect farmer's votes or opinion pieces in various newspapers that were anti-federalist. The federalists asserted that if the states didn't unite, they would slowly devolve into a bunch of little, squabbling countries that would be played against each other or outright conquered by the European powers. He has no answer. He claimed repression of the realty, but many of the county's most famous people rose from nothing. In fact, the upward mobility of the US has exceeded every other country since it's inception. This contradicts his claim, yet he has no answer. I would go so far as to say that he fails to justify any of his smears and that history both before and after 1913 has not been on his side.