- cross-posted to:
- workreform
- cross-posted to:
- workreform
You must log in or register to comment.
For those wondering, this is part of a quote attributed to Lincoln by Teddy Roosevelt in a 1910 speech where he attributes several quotes to Lincoln. A fuller excerpt of the Roosevelt speech is as follows:
Part of our debt to [Lincoln] is because he forecast our present struggle and saw the way out. He said: “I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind.” And again: “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the working man hear his side. “Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. . . . Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; . . . property is desirable; is a positive good in the world.” And then comes a thoroughly Lincoln-like sentence: “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”
Oh wow, I can’t believe I only ever knew this as Teddy quoting Lincoln. I never actually bothered to look it up to confirm it, but it makes sense that it would be a State of the Union. Genuinely thank you for that. For those interested in reading it, Wikipedia has a sister project called Wikisource that houses the full texts of this sort of thing.
I actually noticed the wikisource link at the bottom right after I posted the wikipedia article lmao. Talk about bad timing on my part.
“Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. . . . Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; . . . property is desirable; is a positive good in the world.” And then comes a thoroughly Lincoln-like sentence: “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”
Lemmy is going to pull you out of your home and hang you by the nearest streetlamp. How DARE you!
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class—neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families—wives, sons, and daughters—work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.
Reads like Eisenhower warning about the military industrial complex.
Cassandra truths seem a recurring theme in world history.
Oh, to be clear, I massively disagree with that part of the quote; I’m just presenting that part because it would be pretty deliberate misrepresentation otherwise.
Reminder that Marx and Lincoln corresponded via letters, and that Marx was impressed enough to call on European communists to volunteer with the US military to get good exercise in hunting down slaver scum for sport.
Reminder that Marx and Lincoln corresponded via letters
Just the one - or two, if one prefers - I believe. Marx sent a letter on behalf of some socialist org he was a part of, and Lincoln returned a short, though positive, response. Lincoln was also a regular reader of a newspaper Marx regularly contributed to, so he was likely at least somewhat aware of who Marx was beforehand.
It is very interesting, though - it shows how much of a ‘big tent’ antislavery party the Republican Party was at the time, and that it included ideologies that were not hostile to socialism, even as a high up as Lincoln.
Lincoln never seriously contested the existence of capitalism, to my knowledge, but generally spoke with a very strong pro-labor and pro-collective action bend. One might think of him as a pre-welfare state socdem.
*worst motivational speaker ever.
Lincoln, as with all US presidents, was still a terrible person. Indigenous genocider who only ever emancipated PoC for military strategy and floated the idea of deporting all the newly freed persons to some island multiple times rather than dealing with integrating them into society. He wrecked radical reconstruction by being ultra soft on Confederates because he, as stated plainly more than once, cared far more that the country stay together than for the well-being of PoC. Of course, his successor was much worse on that front, but still.
I’m completely confident that people 150 years from now will say very similar things about us and our contemporaries. Maybe that knowledge will help you chill the fuck out, even just a bit.
I hope they do and I hope they see those of us who call it out for what it is nowadays just as there existed many people back then who knew what was truly right.
who only ever emancipated PoC for military strategy
Not even close to true.
and floated the idea of deporting all the newly freed persons to some island multiple times rather than dealing with integrating them into society.
Colonization was widely supported pre-Civil War by leaders of the Black community as well.
He wrecked radical reconstruction by being ultra soft on Confederates
Out of no small concern for the prospect of a guerilla war sparking up - something which the KKK several years later, thankfully after the Confederates had been largely disarmed and disbanded, did end up creating in response to losing their ‘privileges’ over Black folk as part of Reconstruction. As they were disorganized and ill-equipped, President Grant was able to decisively put them down and eradicate their organization as well as their fighting capacity with the use of Federal troops. If those numbers had been swollen years earlier by freshly desperate Confederate veterans, still in close contact with their units? It would not have gone as smoothly as it did.
Fuck, man. People are products of their time and environment. Take the quote as the W it is.
Not even close to true.
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” - Abraham Lincoln in an open letter to Horace Greeley, 1862.
Colonization was widely supported pre-Civil War by leaders of the Black community as well.
Maybe in a world where being freed in the USA seemed impossible, and from a place of struggle. Not out of the mouth of the most powerful man in the country AFTER these people were made free.
Out of no small concern for the prospect of a guerilla war sparking up - something which the KKK several years later, thankfully after the Confederates had been largely disarmed and disbanded, did end up creating in response to losing their ‘privileges’ over Black folk as part of Reconstruction
Leaving Confederates largely in power is exactly what led to this. The system had to be dismantled not wishy-washy “oh just say you’re loyal now and you can go back to your life”. This left Confederates in a position in society that hugely hampered financial and societal freedom of the freedmen in a vicious, self worsening cycle setting them back into a spiral of poverty that led to nearly as bad conditions as slavery.
People are products of their time
There are people from that time with FAR better views and actions than Lincoln.
That quote in no way backs up
who only ever emancipated PoC for military strategy
I deliberately avoided contesting
because he, as stated plainly more than once, cared far more that the country stay together than for the well-being of PoC.
Maybe in a world where being freed in the USA seemed impossible, and from a place of struggle. Not out of the mouth of the most powerful man in the country AFTER these people were made free.
Lincoln publicly spoke out in favor of full integration of Black Americans into the national fabric before his death. Most sources agree Lincoln abandoned colonization shortly after the Emancipation Proclamation; others say only after the approval of the 13th by the Senate.
Leaving Confederates largely in power is exactly what led to this. The system had to be dismantled not wishy-washy “oh just say you’re loyal now and you can go back to your life”.
Confederates were largely not left in power by Lincoln. Do you not remember the terms laid down by Reconstruction before Johnson?
There are people from that time with FAR better views and actions than Lincoln.
Okay?
cared more for keeping the country together than the interests of PoC
You say that as if the country staying together wasn’t one million percent in the interest of all the black folks that separatism was sparked for the explicit purpose of keeping enslaved.
You strike me as the kind of person who thinks the answer to frustration with democratic status-quo on Israel right now is to let the guy who served them West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights on a silver platter back into office, either because you’re bad at math or because you think looking like you’re bad at math is better than getting called out for being a fucking traitor and collaborationist.
