The Conscienceless Jonathan Jaynes

[zodiac@xxxxxxxxxxxx (zodiac)]

Jonathan Jaynes servers up a pile of bullshit here...

> I am assuming that you feel I have been "taking" your files from the M/E
> Archive...Well, you are wrong. I have transcribed the files and did the HTML
> markup

You did the HTML, but you didn't transcribe them. (And what shitty HTML it
is...)

Why you are lying about this really makes me wonder where your head is at.
Let's examine the list of Marx/Engels works you feature at 6:50 pm EST Thurs
Jan 18 1996. Here is the complete list:

   1842, Communism and the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung

   1843, On The Jewish Question

   1844, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

   1844, Critical Notes on the Article "The King of Prussia and Social Reform"

   1845, Theses on Feuerbach

   1847, The Poverty of Philosophy

   1847, Principles of Communism

   1847, On the Question of Free Trade

   1848, Communism, Revolution, and a Free Poland

   1848, The Communist Manifesto

   1849, Wage-Labor and Capital

   1850, England's 17th Century Revolution

   1852, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

   1853, The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery

   1865, Value, Price and Profit

   1867, Poland and the Russian Menace

   1869, The Abolition of Private Property

   1869, The Relationship between the Irish and English Working

   Classes

   1872, On Authority

   1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme

   1877, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

   1881, Social Classes - Necessary and Superfluous

   1882, Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity

   1883, Engels Speech at the Graveside Service of Karl Marx

   1894, The Peasant Question in France and Germany

    Excerpts from Das Kapital

You took every single one of those works from the M/E site. There's nothing
illegal about that. But this lying... what is your game? Why lie?You on
staff, John?


Some works "you transcribed" are not particularly notable, Johnny... how odd
to see them there.  I transcribed these odd little works myself for personal
purposes and then just included on the site because I had them done -- like
Marx's speeches on Poland and the Duchess of Sutherland news article (which
is a great piece, and would later be incorporated into Marx's Capital). And
there is "On Authority" generously transcribed by Mike Lepore in 1993, when
the project was starting up. And there is Wage, Labor and Capital, and Value
Price and Profit (done by Mike Ballard during his lunchbreaks at work).

You are flat out lying and I can't figure out why.

> The fact that we may have some overlap of material in our
> archives does not suggest that I "stole" them from you.

We have a lot of overlap, you took the entire M/E Archive.

> I am rather suprised and offended at your attack. I have acknowledged at
my web
> site that there are many great Marxist sites on the Web, and I feel that
yours is
> one of the best. Don't be threatened by somebody else trying to accomplish
the
> same goals you are striving for.

1. "Attack"? My original comment had a "smiley"... If you think that was an
attack, perhaps overly touchy on this subject... and rightly so.

2. "Threatened"? What they hell is threatening? I want these works to
circulate! That is the whole purpose. And I try to make sure the people who
donate their spare time to help make that a reality get a modicum of
recognition. I would think you would want them to be likewise recognized.
Instead, you strip out their names... which I thought was rather rude... but
NOW you say you did the transcribing yourself! THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF WEASELHOOD.

3. "Stole"? How can you steal what isn't owned?

This isn't some stupid web site rivalry, John, you're welcome to take
whatever you want, whenever you want, and reformat them in any manner you
like. But if you have a conscience at all, you'll acknowledge the hard work
put in by volunteers.

Ken.

P.S. If you need proof this fellow is a lying sack of shit (though why he is
lying I simply don't understand, and if someone can fill me in on that I'd
greatly appreciate it), compare my original of the "Duchess of Sutherland"
article with his so-called HTML version of it  -- which I grabbed off his
site a few minutes ago. (BTW -- it's nothing but a <PRE> tag hack, Johnny,
nothing HTML about it, you don't even get your <H2> and </H3> tags straight... )

It is a direct rip off, right down to the line breaks in the blockquote
section. The killer proof is that the number "794,000" appears in the text
-- which is a change I myself made. It is in none of the other texts
anywhere in the world, they all use the written-out form. Heck, Jon even
leaves in a few _ marks from the original, tho those should never appear in
the HTML web version. He sloppily forgot to take them out...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ORIGINAL from Jan 94 --
                  THE DUCHESS OF SUTHERLAND AND SLAVERY

                                        London, Friday, January 21, 1853

During the present momentary slackness in political affairs, the address
of the Stafford House Assembly of Ladies to their sisters in America
upon the subject of Negro-Slavery, and the "affectionate and Christian
address of many thousands of the women of the United States of America
to their sisters, the women of England", upon white slavery, have proved
a god-send to the press.  Not one of the British papers was ever struck
by the circumstance that the Stafford House Assembly took place at the
palace under the Presidency of the Duchess of Sutherland, and yet the
names of Stafford and Sutherland should have been sufficient to class
the philanthropy of the British Aristocracy -- a philanthropy which
chooses its objects as far distant from home as possible, and rather on
that than on this side of the ocean.

The history of the wealth of the Sutherland family is the history of the
ruin and of the expropriation of the Scotch-Gaelic population from its
native soil.  As far back as the 10th century, the Danes had landed in
Scotland, conquered the plains of Caithness, and driven back the
aborigines into the mountains.  Mhoir-Fhear-Chattaibh, as he was called
in Gaelic, or the "Great Man of Sutherland", had always found his
companions-in-arms ready to defend him at risk of their lives against
all his enemies, Danes or Scots, foreigners or natives.  After the
revolution which drove the Stuarts from Britain, private feuds among the
petty chieftains of Scotland became less and less frequent, and the
British Kings, in order to keep up at least a semblance of dominion in
these remote districts, encouraged the levying of family regiments among
the chieftains, a system by which these _lairds_ were enabled to combine
modern military establishments with the ancient _clan_ system in such a
manner as to support one by the other.

Now, in order to distinctly appreciate the usurpation subsequently
carried out, we must first properly understand what the clan meant.  The
clan belonged to a form of social existence which, in the scale of
historical development, stands a full degree below the feudal state;
viz., the _patriarchal_ state of society.  "Klaen", in Gaelic, means
children.  Every one of the usages and traditions of the Scottish Gaels
reposes upon the supposition that the members of the clan belong to one
and the same family.  The "great man", the chieftain of the clan, is on
the one hand quite as arbitrary, on the other quite as confined in his
power, by consanguinity, &c., as every father of a family.  To the clan,
to the family, belonged the district where it had established itself,
exactly as in Russia, the land occupied by a community of peasants
belongs, not to the individual peasants, but to the community.  Thus the
district was the common property of the family.  There could be no more
question, under this system, of private property, in the modern sense of
the word, than there could be of comparing the social existence of the
members of the clan to that of individuals living in the midst of our
modern society.  The division and subdivision of the land corresponded
to the military functions of the single members of the clan.  According
to their military abilities, the chieftain entrusted to them the several
allotments, cancelled or enlarged according to his pleasure the tenures
of the individual officers, and these officers again distributed to
their vassals and under-vassals every separate plot of land.  But the
district at large always remained the property of the clan, and, however
the claims of individuals might vary, the tenure remained the same; nor
were the contributions for the common defence, or the tribute for the
Laird, who at once was leader in battle and chief magistrate in peace,
ever increased.  Upon the whole, every plot of land was cultivated by
the same family, from generation to generation, under fixed imposts.
These imposts were insignificant, more a tribute by which the supremacy
of the "great man" and of his officers was acknowledged, than a rent of
land in a modern sense, or a source of revenue.  The officers directly
subordinate to the "great man" were called "Taksmen", and the district
entrusted to their care, "Tak".  Under then were placed inferior
officers, at the head of every hamlet, and under these stood the
peasantry.

Thus you see, the clan is nothing but a family organized in a military
manner, quite as little defined by laws, just as closely hemmed in by
traditions, as any family.  But the land is the _property of the
family_, in the midst of which differences of rank, in spite of
consanguinity, do prevail as well as in all the ancient Asiatic family
communities.

The first usurpation took place, after the expulsion of the Stuarts, by
the establishment of the family Regiments.  From that moment, _pay_
became the principal source of revenue of the Great Man, the
Mhoir-Fhear-Chattaibh.  Entangled in the dissipation of the Court of
London, he tried to squeeze as much money as possible out of his
officers, nd they applied the same system of their inferiors.  The
ancient tribute was transformed into fixed money contracts.  In one
respect these contracts constituted a progress, by fixing the
traditional imposts; in another respect they were a usurpation, inasmuch
as the "great man" now took the position of landlord toward the
"taksmen" who again took toward the peasantry that of farmers.  And as
the "great men" now required money no less than the "taksmen", a
production not only for direct consumption but for export and exchange
also became necessary; the system of national production had to be
changed, the hands superseded by this change had to be got rid of.
Population, therefore, decreased.  But that it as yet was kept up in a
certain manner, and that man, in the 18th century, was not yet openly
sacrificed to net-revenue, we see from a passage in Steuart, a Scotch
political economist, whose work was published 10 years before Adam
Smith's, where it says (Vol.1, Chap.16):

     "The rent of these lands is very trifling compared to their extent,
     but compared to the number of mouths which a farm maintains, it
     will perhaps be found that a plot of land in the highlands of
     Scotland feeds ten times more people than a farm of the same extent
     in the richest provinces."

That even in the beginnings of the 19th century the rental imposts were
very small, is shown by the work of Mr Loch (1820), the steward of the
Countess of Sutherland, who directed the improvements on her estates.
He gives for instance the rental of the Kintradawell estate for 1811,
from which it appears that up to then, every family was obliged to pay a
yearly impost of a few shillings in money, a few fowls, and some days'
work, at the highest.

It was only after 1811 that the ultimate and real usurpation was
enacted, the forcible transformation of _clan-property_ into the
_private property_, in the modern sense, _of the Chief_.  The person who
stood at the head of this economical revolution was a female Mehemet
Ali, who had well digested her Malthus -- the Countess of Sutherland,
alias Marchioness of Stafford.

Let us first state that the ancestors of the Marchioness of Stafford
were the "great men" of the most northern part of Scotland, of very near
three-quarters of Sutherlandshire.  This country is more extensive than
many French Departments or small German Principalities.  when the
Countess of Sutherland inherited these estates, which she afterward
brought to her husband, the Marquis of Stafford, afterward Duke of
Sutherland, the population of them was already reduced to 15,000.  My
lady Countess resolved upon a radical economical reform, and determined
upon transforming the whole tract of country into sheep-walks.  From
1814 to 1820, these 15,000 inhabitants, about3,000 families, were
systematically expelled and exterminated.  All their villages were
demolished and burned down, and all their fields converted into
pasturage.  British soldiers were commanded for this execution, and came
to blows with the natives.  An old woman refusing to quit her hut was
burned in the flames of it.  Thus my lady Countess appropriated to
herself 794,000 acres of land, which from time immemorial had belonged
to the clan.  In the exuberance of her generosity she allotted to the
expelled natives about 6,000 acres -- two acres per family.  These 6,000
acres had been lying waste until then, and brought no revenue to the
proprietors.  The Countess was generous enough to sell the acre at 2s 6d
on an average, to the clan-men who for centuries past had shed their
blood for her family.  The whole of the unrightfully appropriated
clan-land she divided into 29 large sheep farms, each of them inhabited
by one single family, mostly English farm-laborers; and in 1821 the
15,000 Gaels had already been superseded by 131,000 sheep.

A portion of the aborigines had been thrown upon the sea-shore, and
attempted to live by fishing.  They became amphibious, and, as an
English author says, lived half on land and half on water, and after all
did not live upon both.

Sismondi, in his _Etudes Sociales_, observes with regard to this
expropriation of the Gaels from Sutherlandshire -- an example, which,
by-the-by, was imitated by other "great men" of Scotland:

     "The large extent of seignorial domains is not a circumstance
     peculiar to Britain.  In the whole Empire of Charlemagne, in the
     whole Occident, entire provinces were usurped by the warlike
     chiefs, who had them cultivated for their own account by the
     vanquished, and sometimes by their own companions-in-arms.  During
     the 9th and 10th centuries the Counties of Maine, Anjou, Poitou
     were for the Counts of these provinces rather three large estates
     than principalities.  Switzerland, which in so many respects
     resembles Scotland, was at that time divided among a small number
     of Seigneurs.  If the Counts of Kyburg, of Lenzburg, of Habsburg,
     of Gruyeres had been protected by British laws, they would have
     been in the same position as the Earls of Sutherland; some of them
     would perhaps have had the same taste for improvement as the
     Marchioness of Stafford,and more than one republic might have
     disappeared from the Alps in order to make room for flocks of
     sheep.  Not the most despotic monarch in Germany would be allowed
     to attempt anything of the sort."

Mr Loch, in his defense of the Countess of Sutherland (1820), replies to
the above as follows:

     "Why should there be made an exception to the rule adopted in every
     other case, just for this particular case?  Why should the absolute
     authority of the landlord over his land be sacrificed to the public
     interest and to motives which concern the public only?"

And why, then, should the slave-holders in the Southern States of North
America sacrifice their private interest to the philanthropic grimaces
of her Grace, the Duchess of Sutherland?

The British aristocracy, who have everywhere superseded man by bullocks
and sheep, will, in a future not very distant, be superseded, in turn,
by these useful animals.

The process of _clearing estates_, which, in Scotland, we have just now
described, was carried out in England in the 16th, 17th, and 18th
centuries.  Thomas Morus already complains of it in the beginning of the
16th century.  It was performed in Scotland in the beginning of the
19th, and in Ireland it is now in full progress.  The noble Viscount
Palmerston, too, some years ago cleared of men his property in Ireland,
exactly in the manner described above.

If of any property it ever was true that it was _robbery_, it is
literally true of the property of the British aristocracy.  Robbery of
Church property, robbery of commons, fraudulent transformation,
accompanied by murder, of feudal and patriarchal property into private
property -- these are the titles of British aristocrats to their
possessions.  And what services in this latter process were performed by
a servile class of lawyers, you may see from an English lawyer of the
last century, Dalrymple, who, in his _History of Feudal Property_, very
naively proves that every law or deed concerning property was
interpreted by the lawyers, in England, when the middle class rose in
wealth in favor of the _middle class_ -- in Scotland, where the nobility
enriched themselves, in favor of the _nobility_ -- in either case it was
interpreted in a sense hostile to the _people_.

The above Turkish reform by the Countess of Sutherland was justifiable,
at least, from a Malthusian point of view.  Other Scottish noblemen went
further.  Having superseded human beings by sheep, they superseded sheep
by game, and the pasture grounds by forests.  At the head of these was
the Duke of Atholl.

     "After the conquest, the Norman Kings afforested large portions of
     the soil of England, in much the same way as the landlords here are
     now doing with the Highlands.

                           (R. Somers, _Letters on the Highlands_, 1848)

As for a large number of the human beings expelled to make room for the
game of the Duke of Atholl, and the sheep of the Countess of Sutherland,
where did they fly to, where did they find a home?

In the United States of America.

The enemy of British Wage-Slavery has a right to condemn Negro-Slavery;
a Duchess of Sutherland, a Duke of Atholl, a Manchester Cotton-lord --
never!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<html>
<head>
<title>The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery</title>
</head>
<body>
<body background=""bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" link="#ff0000"
vlink="#ff0000"">

******NOTE: You have two body tags, nimrod. ******

<h2>The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery
<br>
by Karl Marx, 1853</h3> *******close the header properly********
<pre>

</pre>
London, Friday, January 21, 1853
<p>
During the present momentary slackness in political affairs, the address
of the Stafford House Assembly of Ladies to their sisters in America
upon the subject of Negro-Slavery, and the "affectionate and Christian
address of many thousands of the women of the United States of America
to their sisters, the women of England", upon white slavery, have proved
a god-send to the press.  Not one of the British papers was ever struck
by the circumstance that the Stafford House Assembly took place at the
palace under the Presidency of the Duchess of Sutherland, and yet the
names of Stafford and Sutherland should have been sufficient to class
the philanthropy of the British Aristocracy -- a philanthropy which
chooses its objects as far distant from home as possible, and rather on
that than on this side of the ocean.
 <p>
The history of the wealth of the Sutherland family is the history of the
ruin and of the expropriation of the Scotch-Gaelic population from its
native soil.  As far back as the 10th century, the Danes had landed in
Scotland, conquered the plains of Caithness, and driven back the
aborigines into the mountains.  Mhoir-Fhear-Chattaibh, as he was called
in Gaelic, or the "Great Man of Sutherland", had always found his
companions-in-arms ready to defend him at risk of their lives against
all his enemies, Danes or Scots, foreigners or natives.  After the
revolution which drove the Stuarts from Britain, private feuds among the
petty chieftains of Scotland became less and less frequent, and the
British Kings, in order to keep up at least a semblance of dominion in
these remote districts, encouraged the levying of family regiments among
the chieftains, a system by which these lairds were enabled to combine
modern military establishments with the ancient clan system in such a
manner as to support one by the other.
<p>
Now, in order to distinctly appreciate the usurpation subsequently
carried out, we must first properly understand what the clan meant.  The
clan belonged to a form of social existence which, in the scale of
historical development, stands a full degree below the feudal state;
viz., the patriarchal state of society.  "Klaen", in Gaelic, means
children.  Every one of the usages and traditions of the Scottish Gaels
reposes upon the supposition that the members of the clan belong to one
and the same family.  The "great man", the chieftain of the clan, is on
the one hand quite as arbitrary, on the other quite as confined in his
power, by consanguinity, &c., as every father of a family.  To the clan,
to the family, belonged the district where it had established itself,
exactly as in Russia, the land occupied by a community of peasants
belongs, not to the individual peasants, but to the community.  Thus the
district was the common property of the family.  There could be no more
question, under this system, of private property, in the modern sense of
the word, than there could be of comparing the social existence of the
members of the clan to that of individuals living in the midst of our
modern society.  The division and subdivision of the land corresponded
to the military functions of the single members of the clan.  According
to their military abilities, the chieftain entrusted to them the several
allotments, cancelled or enlarged according to his pleasure the tenures
of the individual officers, and these officers again distributed to
their vassals and under-vassals every separate plot of land.  But the
district at large always remained the property of the clan, and, however
the claims of individuals might vary, the tenure remained the same; nor
were the contributions for the common defence, or the tribute for the
Laird, who at once was leader in battle and chief magistrate in peace,
ever increased.  Upon the whole, every plot of land was cultivated by
the same family, from generation to generation, under fixed imposts.
These imposts were insignificant, more a tribute by which the supremacy
of the "great man" and of his officers was acknowledged, than a rent of
land in a modern sense, or a source of revenue.  The officers directly
subordinate to the "great man" were called "Taksmen", and the district
entrusted to their care, "Tak".  Under then were placed inferior
officers, at the head of every hamlet, and under these stood the
peasantry.
 <p>
Thus you see, the clan is nothing but a family organized in a military
manner, quite as little defined by laws, just as closely hemmed in by
traditions, as any family.  But the land is the property of the
family, in the midst of which differences of rank, in spite of
consanguinity, do prevail as well as in all the ancient Asiatic family
communities.
<p>
The first usurpation took place, after the expulsion of the Stuarts, by
the establishment of the family Regiments.  From that moment, pay
became the principal source of revenue of the Great Man, the
Mhoir-Fhear-Chattaibh.  Entangled in the dissipation of the Court of
London, he tried to squeeze as much money as possible out of his
officers, nd they applied the same system of their inferiors.  The
ancient tribute was transformed into fixed money contracts.  In one
respect these contracts constituted a progress, by fixing the
traditional imposts; in another respect they were a usurpation, inasmuch
as the "great man" now took the position of landlord toward the
"taksmen" who again took toward the peasantry that of farmers.  And as
the "great men" now required money no less than the "taksmen", a
production not only for direct consumption but for export and exchange
also became necessary; the system of national production had to be
changed, the hands superseded by this change had to be got rid of.
Population, therefore, decreased.  But that it as yet was kept up in a
certain manner, and that man, in the 18th century, was not yet openly
sacrificed to net-revenue, we see from a passage in Steuart, a Scotch
political economist, whose work was published 10 years before Adam
Smith's, where it says (Vol.1, Chap.16):
 <blockquote>
     "The rent of these lands is very trifling compared to their extent,
     but compared to the number of mouths which a farm maintains, it
     will perhaps be found that a plot of land in the highlands of
     Scotland feeds ten times more people than a farm of the same extent
     in the richest provinces."
</blockquote>
That even in the beginnings of the 19th century the rental imposts were
very small, is shown by the work of Mr Loch (1820), the steward of the
Countess of Sutherland, who directed the improvements on her estates.
He gives for instance the rental of the Kintradawell estate for 1811,
from which it appears that up to then, every family was obliged to pay a
yearly impost of a few shillings in money, a few fowls, and some days'
work, at the highest.
 <p>
It was only after 1811 that the ultimate and real usurpation was
enacted, the forcible transformation of clan-property into the
private property, in the modern sense, of the Chief.  The person who
stood at the head of this economical revolution was a female Mehemet
Ali, who had well digested her Malthus -- the Countess of Sutherland,
alias Marchioness of Stafford.
 <p>
Let us first state that the ancestors of the Marchioness of Stafford
were the "great men" of the most northern part of Scotland, of very near
three-quarters of Sutherlandshire.  This country is more extensive than
many French Departments or small German Principalities.  when the
Countess of Sutherland inherited these estates, which she afterward
brought to her husband, the Marquis of Stafford, afterward Duke of
Sutherland, the population of them was already reduced to 15,000.  My
lady Countess resolved upon a radical economical reform, and determined
upon transforming the whole tract of country into sheep-walks.  From
1814 to 1820, these 15,000 inhabitants, about3,000 families, were
systematically expelled and exterminated.  All their villages were
demolished and burned down, and all their fields converted into
pasturage.  British soldiers were commanded for this execution, and came
to blows with the natives.  An old woman refusing to quit her hut was
burned in the flames of it.  Thus my lady Countess appropriated to
herself 794,000 acres of land, which from time immemorial had belonged
to the clan.  In the exuberance of her generosity she allotted to the
expelled natives about 6,000 acres -- two acres per family.  These 6,000
acres had been lying waste until then, and brought no revenue to the
proprietors.  The Countess was generous enough to sell the acre at 2s 6d
on an average, to the clan-men who for centuries past had shed their
blood for her family.  The whole of the unrightfully appropriated
clan-land she divided into 29 large sheep farms, each of them inhabited
by one single family, mostly English farm-laborers; and in 1821 the
15,000 Gaels had already been superseded by 131,000 sheep.
<p>
A portion of the aborigines had been thrown upon the sea-shore, and
attempted to live by fishing.  They became amphibious, and, as an
English author says, lived half on land and half on water, and after all
did not live upon both.
 <p>
Sismondi, in his _Etudes Sociales_, observes with regard to this
expropriation of the Gaels from Sutherlandshire -- an example, which,
by-the-by, was imitated by other "great men" of Scotland:
 <blockquote>
     "The large extent of seignorial domains is not a circumstance
     peculiar to Britain.  In the whole Empire of Charlemagne, in the
     whole Occident, entire provinces were usurped by the warlike
     chiefs, who had them cultivated for their own account by the
     vanquished, and sometimes by their own companions-in-arms.  During
     the 9th and 10th centuries the Counties of Maine, Anjou, Poitou
     were for the Counts of these provinces rather three large estates
     than principalities.  Switzerland, which in so many respects
     resembles Scotland, was at that time divided among a small number
     of Seigneurs.  If the Counts of Kyburg, of Lenzburg, of Habsburg,
     of Gruyeres had been protected by British laws, they would have
     been in the same position as the Earls of Sutherland; some of them
     would perhaps have had the same taste for improvement as the
     Marchioness of Stafford,and more than one republic might have
     disappeared from the Alps in order to make room for flocks of
     sheep.  Not the most despotic monarch in Germany would be allowed
     to attempt anything of the sort."
</blockquote>
Mr Loch, in his defense of the Countess of Sutherland (1820), replies to
the above as follows:
 <blockquote>
     "Why should there be made an exception to the rule adopted in every
     other case, just for this particular case?  Why should the absolute
     authority of the landlord over his land be sacrificed to the public
     interest and to motives which concern the public only?"
</blockquote>
And why, then, should the slave-holders in the Southern States of North
America sacrifice their private interest to the philanthropic grimaces
of her Grace, the Duchess of Sutherland?
 <p>
The British aristocracy, who have everywhere superseded man by bullocks
and sheep, will, in a future not very distant, be superseded, in turn,
by these useful animals.
<p>
The process of clearing estates, which, in Scotland, we have just now
described, was carried out in England in the 16th, 17th, and 18th
centuries.  Thomas Morus already complains of it in the beginning of the
16th century.  It was performed in Scotland in the beginning of the
19th, and in Ireland it is now in full progress.  The noble Viscount
Palmerston, too, some years ago cleared of men his property in Ireland,
exactly in the manner described above.
 <p>
If of any property it ever was true that it was robbery, it is
literally true of the property of the British aristocracy.  Robbery of
Church property, robbery of commons, fraudulent transformation,
accompanied by murder, of feudal and patriarchal property into private
property -- these are the titles of British aristocrats to their
possessions.  And what services in this latter process were performed by
a servile class of lawyers, you may see from an English lawyer of the
last century, Dalrymple, who, in his _History of Feudal Property_, very
naively proves that every law or deed concerning property was
interpreted by the lawyers, in England, when the middle class rose in
wealth in favor of the middle class -- in Scotland, where the nobility
enriched themselves, in favor of the nobility -- in either case it was
interpreted in a sense hostile to the people.
<p>
The above Turkish reform by the Countess of Sutherland was justifiable,
at least, from a Malthusian point of view.  Other Scottish noblemen went
further.  Having superseded human beings by sheep, they superseded sheep
by game, and the pasture grounds by forests.  At the head of these was
the Duke of Atholl.
 <blockquote>
     "After the conquest, the Norman Kings afforested large portions of
     the soil of England, in much the same way as the landlords here are
     now doing with the Highlands.  (R. Somers, _Letters on the Highlands_,
1848)
 </blockquote>
As for a large number of the human beings expelled to make room for the
game of the Duke of Atholl, and the sheep of the Countess of Sutherland,
where did they fly to, where did they find a home?
 <p>
In the United States of America.
 <p>
The enemy of British Wage-Slavery has a right to condemn Negro-Slavery;
a Duchess of Sutherland, a Duke of Atholl, a Manchester Cotton-lord --
never!
<pre>

</pre>
<a href="marx.htm"><img src="docsleft.gif" align=left border=0></a>
</body>
</html>



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------