Having read Howard Fast's Citizen Tom Paine for a challenge a couple months back, I decided for the banned book challenge to read some of Paine's own writings, especially The Rights of Man which was not only banned but nearly got Paine hanged in England. As I said in my review of the novel, Paine is my favorite among the "founding fathers"; he was one of the few leading figures of the Revolution who was from a working class background, and unlike most of them remained a revolutionary throughout his life, supporting the French Revolution and arguing for revolutions in England and throughout Europe. Today, when the radical right tries to rewrite history to present the American "founding fathers" as if they were politically conservative Christian fundamentalists, there is no better antidote than to read Thomas Paine.
Peter Linebaugh Presents Thomas Paine: Common Sense, Rights of Man and Agrarian Justice 314 pages
This book contains three works of Paine with an introduction and notes by Linebaugh; this is part of a series of "So-and-so Presents" which publishes classic works of political theory
with introductions by well-known modern political writers and even political figures (some other books in the series include Hugo Chavez on Simon Bolivar, Jean-
Bertrand Aristide on Toussaint L'Ouverture, Slavoj Žižek on Trotsky, on Mao, and on Robespierre, and Tariq Ali on Castro). I will review the three works separately:
Thomas Paine, Common Sense [1776]
This is probably one of the all-time best sellers, considered in proportion to the population when it was published; it sold more than 100,000 copies in a little over a year. It argued the case for independence of the colonies, taking up the theoretical arguments for allegiance to the crown, and showing that practically speaking once the British had tried to suppress the colonies by military force and the colonists had taken up arms against them, any reconciliation was basically impossible. It had a great effect on public opinion, and is still interesting for understanding the American Revolution.
[In between I read the pamphlet by Richard Price and Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.]
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Part the First: Being a Reply to Mr. Burke's Attack on the French Revolution [1791]
This is a reply to Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. It considers his arguments one by one and shows that they are either absurd in themselves or at odds with actual history. Unlike Burke, Paine was actually in France and knew many of the leaders of the revolution, particularly of course the Marquis de Lafayette. He presents a much more detailed and believable account of the events in 1789 around the taking of the Bastile and the transportation of the King and Queen to Paris. (I have to admit that I haven't read much history of the French Revolution, so I can't say whether it is completely accurate.) In general, while Burke's book is obviously written in support of the ancien régime and relies mainly on insults, dramatic emotional appeals and a hardly veiled contempt for the people, while presenting the nobility, clergy and royalty as innocent victims possessed of every kind of virtue, Paine's book sides with the people and considers the nobility and clergy basically as oppressors, if not individually at least as a class (he, unlike Burke, tries to distinguish classes from individual personalities, and while considering the monarchy as such as despotic admits that Louis XVI personally was not a despot). In fact, one of the differences between Burke and Paine is that Paine insists on considering the nobility as a definite class and not simply as individuals who happened to own landed property. In every respect, this is a much better book, one that is fun to read and one that should be read by anyone who is interested in the ideas of one of our most consistent "founding fathers".
I do have to admit, however, that Paine at times is very naive in his estimate of the leaders of the National Assembly, and that in hindsight they come off much worse than Paine would allow (Paine himself barely escaped being executed in the period of the terror, for associating with a losing faction and opposing the execution of the King.) While Paine is superior to Burke in considering the class nature of the ancien régime, Burke is far more aware of the class nature of the National Assembly as representatives of the "monied interest" (i.e. the rising bourgeoisie) while Paine considers them representatives of an undivided "people". He eventually became disillusioned with both the French and American governments, while never ceasing to be a revolutionary.
[Next I read Edmund Burke, An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs ]
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Part the Second: Combining Principle and Practice [1792]
Despite a few references to the two books by Burke, in the second part Paine essentially leaves behind the polemical nature of the first part for a more positive discussion. He begins with a discussion of the British Constitution, comparing it not only to the French but also to the American Constitution. The only weaknesses in his discussion were the assumption that "representation" by itself would end all the abuses of the old governments, including war, and the assumption that the merchants and manufacturers would be allies in the struggle. The first was understandable at a time when real representative government was new in the United States and France and existed nowhere else; after all it was reasonable to assume that if the representatives were elected by the majority of the population they would represent the common people who were the vast majority -- he could hardly foresee the techniques that modern states use to control opinion and distort elections. (He was mercifully spared knowing about the Democrats and Republicans.) The second was the common assumption of most revolutionaries in the era of the bourgeois revolutions.
The second half of part two is quite different and surprised me. Here he attacks the British Parliament for representing the "landed interest" and describes in detail how this is against the interests of the farmers and workers, showing in particular how taxes were heaviest on the poor. He then makes some startlingly modern proposals -- a progressive tax on landed estates, social security for the elderly, welfare for the children of the poor, veterans' benefits, government subsidies for education, arms limitation treaties . . . all things which were first achieved well into the twentieth century.
Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, As Opposed to Agrarian Law and Agrarian Monopoly [1796]
A short pamphlet of about twenty pages, which continues the arguments of the previous book and suggests a progressive inheritance tax. The interest here is that he justifies applying the inheritance tax to personal as well as landed property on the grounds that profits result from paying wage workers less than the value of their labor.