German Socialism and the War
 

On last Friday evening, a general meeting of the German workingmen thus desiring to graft their principles on our Government, was held at Metropolitan Hall, on Hester-street. The meeting adopted resolutions embodying their views, which we find to be substantially as follows: They declare that the present war, having lasted eight months, has "suspended all private enterprise and industry," whereby "thousands and thousands of industrious workingmen are condemned to idleness." They declare, further, that "nearly every one of us" [them] has furnished "some near relation" to the Army which is fighting for "the family of States;" and, therefore, they conclude, "the State at large, or the community, ought to guard and guarantee the welfare of its individual members" -- in other words, not to put so fine a point on it, ought to provide for the support of all who have staid at home!

The plan proposed by these German workingmen for the accomplishment of their desires, is this: that not only our City Government, but our State and National Governments should give out work on as many "public buildings and public works" as possible; and commence immediately the work on "all the buildings, streets and water-works which have been projected." And this work is to be conducted by day labor hired by the Government, and not by contracts, as heretofore.

The Germans, as a race, let us say here in their favor, are a sensible and practical people. They are industrious and honest, moreover, and intensely liberty-loving and patriotic. They desire to support themselves by labor; and that is worthy. But the Utopian philosophers among them, who dream of conducting our Government on Socialistic theories, and who win adherents among their unthinking countrymen, do an immense deal of harm; and though not intending it, they may find themselves before long the most efficient abettors of the aristocratical, Pro-Slavery treason of the South. The error with these German radicals and reformers lies in their total misconception of the American form of Government. Their own idea of a State is that it is composed of two essential parts -- a governing party, which represents wealth, power and authority, and derives in an especial manner the benefits of Government; and a subject party, which represents the laboring and dependent classes, whose toil sustains society in peace, and whose arms defend the State in war. Hence the deduction of the "Socialist," that the aristocratical or governing part of the State should take care of the toiling and dependent masses, by furnishing them labor which will give them food and clothes.

And so it begins :O:

http://www.nytimes.com/1861/08/12/ne...d-the-war.html


FYI I just happened to be searching for Civil War stories of the Eastern Shore and Tangier

.

I was reading the title and then the article, scratching my head.
Then i realised the article is dated from 1861.

Yet it sounds all so familiar doesn't it? :)

History does have a way of repeating itself... :hmm2:

Propaganda repeats itself indeed, again and again.

" ... The error with these German radicals and reformers lies in their total misconception of the American form of Government. ..."

How "old" was the American "form of government" back then ? What did other north american politicians of the time think about those words ? What did the Indians think of that ?


" ... Socialistic theories, and who win adherents among their unthinking countrymen, do an immense deal of harm; and though not intending it, they may find themselves before long the most efficient abettors of the aristocratical, Pro-Slavery treason of the South. ..."

:rotfl2: Ah, Propaganda - iIt more seems like a warning to anyone who has his own ideas about freedom, and liberty, and whom to support. Which certainly already then was feared, by the then established system. Germans, english, irish, scottish, italian, greek whatever - do you really think the pilgrims had this kind of constitution in mind, when they set sail for America ?


" ... own idea of a State is that it is composed of two essential parts -- a governing party, which represents wealth, power and authority, and derives in an especial manner the benefits of Government; and a subject party, which represents the laboring and dependent classes, whose toil sustains society in peace, and whose arms defend the State in war ..."

Replace the word "government" by "big business" and it's all the same.

If you pay private insurance instead of a common state insurance, you are as dependent on the companies paying you money to insure yourself as you were on the government. Who has the idea that a company is less corrupt or more benevolent than a government ?
In how far is the idea of a power at one side, and loan-dependent on the other so far away from what they have in the US ?

This system has canceled the implicit treaty of all having the same chance as long as all work for their money long ago - it seems the govenment which at least cared a little more than a F** about common sense, has been replaced by companies and their interests.
Where is your freedom, and liberty then ? Elect your business bosses directly, and spare the politicians AND the lobbyists. And if you feel like ranting then, at least you blame it on the right persons :O:

Greetings,
Catfish

Sorry Catfish wasn't so much a rant. I was just surprised how long this argument has been perpetuated.

No doubt in my mind this countries founding fathers were business men too. Whose slogans to rally the troops were just like the ones everyone else uses today "freedom and democracy".