|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 28 2023 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 05:45 StasisField wrote: I would also like to hear how excelerationism will lead to a civil war that improves everyone's lives and doesn't completely fuck things up for everyone for several decades. I've yet to hear an argument from an excelerationist that doesn't make them sound as delusional as your everyday libertarian. I'm certainly no accelerationist, so you won't get it from me if that's what you're expecting. Your constant nudging towards revolution doesn't give me much confidence in this reply.
|
On January 28 2023 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 05:45 StasisField wrote: I would also like to hear how excelerationism will lead to a civil war that improves everyone's lives and doesn't completely fuck things up for everyone for several decades. I've yet to hear an argument from an excelerationist that doesn't make them sound as delusional as your everyday libertarian. I'm certainly no accelerationist, so you won't get it from me if that's what you're expecting. What is with the cloak and dagger, just be straight forward and put it out there. How does it play out? What happens after the abolition?
|
On January 28 2023 06:00 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2023 05:45 StasisField wrote: I would also like to hear how excelerationism will lead to a civil war that improves everyone's lives and doesn't completely fuck things up for everyone for several decades. I've yet to hear an argument from an excelerationist that doesn't make them sound as delusional as your everyday libertarian. I'm certainly no accelerationist, so you won't get it from me if that's what you're expecting. Your constant nudging towards revolution doesn't give me much confidence in this reply. I certainly am/strive to be a revolutionary socialist, but that's not accelerationism.
Does "call for the drastic intensification of capitalist growth" sound like something I do?
|
Norway28272 Posts
I do believe the french revolution was ultimately good.
I'd rather live the two decades preceding it than the two decades following it, but I'd rather live 50 years after than 50 years before. An anti-capitalist revolution would, even in an ideal scenario, play out much the same - a whole lot of initial pain, but with a hope for a significantly improved more distant future.
|
I think it is important for people to remember we are all benefiting from the sacrifice of people who lived before us. I think it is a moral imperative to make decisions which aim to make the future better than the current reality. There is nuance to that, but I think generally speaking, people should not choose not to do something due to growing pains.
That being said, the pains that are felt vary a lot between people. It is easy to say "hey, go fight in the war to save the world", but a lot of those soldiers are going to die. Similarly, many parents would choose not to throw their lives away for a revolution that may not work and may make their children's lives worse. I am not sure how the ethics of a decision like that work out, but I think it is worth considering.
People in the past, such as the French Revolution, decided the future was worth fighting for, even if it made the near-term a lot worse. We should strive to follow in their footsteps rather than selfishly label our current condition the most important one.
|
On January 28 2023 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I do believe the french revolution was ultimately good.
I'd rather live the two decades preceding it than the two decades following it, but I'd rather live 50 years after than 50 years before. An anti-capitalist revolution would, even in an ideal scenario, play out much the same - a whole lot of initial pain, but with a hope for a significantly improved more distant future. that was what over 300 years ago? And basically every revolution since has ended with just a different authoritarian and different branding. Seams like a huge risk when we have a pretty good blueprint of how things could be a lot better without the massive loss of life. We also now live with much bigger weapons of mass destruction and war is really really really bad for the environment so I'm not sure that goes well for humanity.
The reason this idea is not popular is not because people think the now is good, or that they do not think that GH's end point is good. It is that history has indicated that fighting a communist revolution does end at the GH end point. It ends with a ruling class and everyone not friends or related to that ruling class as equally poor. Some sort of this is what we would do different is required. It is also required that you openly talk about the rather obvious to most failings of the past communist revolutions and the current communist countries. Talking positively about the leadership and outcomes of the USSR, China, NK, Venezuela so on takes an incredible amount of scapegoating which is hard for almost everyone to believe.
On January 28 2023 07:02 Mohdoo wrote: I think it is important for people to remember we are all benefiting from the sacrifice of people who lived before us. I think it is a moral imperative to make decisions which aim to make the future better than the current reality. There is nuance to that, but I think generally speaking, people should not choose not to do something due to growing pains.
That being said, the pains that are felt vary a lot between people. It is easy to say "hey, go fight in the war to save the world", but a lot of those soldiers are going to die. Similarly, many parents would choose not to throw their lives away for a revolution that may not work and may make their children's lives worse. I am not sure how the ethics of a decision like that work out, but I think it is worth considering.
People in the past, such as the French Revolution, decided the future was worth fighting for, even if it made the near-term a lot worse. We should strive to follow in their footsteps rather than selfishly label our current condition the most important one.
I'm all for change, it could be so much better. My issue is that people do not seem to understand how actually bad it was, or how actually bad it is many places in the world. It can and has been much worse than it is in a liberal democracy. I do not see how anyone could argue it is better in the self proclaimed communist countries that exist. I get that argument for social democracies. I get the argument they could go further.
|
I don't buy the slaughter and chaos of the revolution as well as the decades of war it sparked as being positive. Saying things were better 50 year later after it just seems silly and obvious regardless.
Britian exported a stable system of democratic governance and the industrial revolution. The vast system of global trade that they created as well had a far greater effect then warlords and wonton executions did.
|
On January 28 2023 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 06:00 StasisField wrote:On January 28 2023 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2023 05:45 StasisField wrote: I would also like to hear how excelerationism will lead to a civil war that improves everyone's lives and doesn't completely fuck things up for everyone for several decades. I've yet to hear an argument from an excelerationist that doesn't make them sound as delusional as your everyday libertarian. I'm certainly no accelerationist, so you won't get it from me if that's what you're expecting. Your constant nudging towards revolution doesn't give me much confidence in this reply. I certainly am/strive to be a revolutionary socialist, but that's not accelerationism. Does " call for the drastic intensification of capitalist growth" sound like something I do? Finish the quote: "...technological change and other social processes in order to destabilize existing systems and create radical social transformation, otherwise known as 'acceleration'." You want to destabilize the US and cause a revolution to bring about radical social transformation. You don't have to call for all 3(intensifying capitalism, tech change, and other social processes). Calling for capitalist growth is just a popular accelerationist position.
EDIT: There are also many types of left and marxist accelerationism and they all have accelerating towards a post-capitalist society in common, whether that be from exaserbating the worst traits of capitalism or by intensifying the conditions which will bring about revolution depends on what type of accelerationism we're talking about. I personally think GH qualifies as one because their beliefs seem to consistently align with taking actions that will further destabilize the country and lead to civil war.
|
Norway28272 Posts
On January 28 2023 07:02 Mohdoo wrote: I think it is important for people to remember we are all benefiting from the sacrifice of people who lived before us. I think it is a moral imperative to make decisions which aim to make the future better than the current reality. There is nuance to that, but I think generally speaking, people should not choose not to do something due to growing pains.
That being said, the pains that are felt vary a lot between people. It is easy to say "hey, go fight in the war to save the world", but a lot of those soldiers are going to die. Similarly, many parents would choose not to throw their lives away for a revolution that may not work and may make their children's lives worse. I am not sure how the ethics of a decision like that work out, but I think it is worth considering.
People in the past, such as the French Revolution, decided the future was worth fighting for, even if it made the near-term a lot worse. We should strive to follow in their footsteps rather than selfishly label our current condition the most important one.
The problem is that the future of each option is unknown and it's not a given that the post-sacrifice future is much if any better, and then, the only situation that makes a revolution tempting is one where the present also sucks - even if one acknowledges that the current future is likely to suck. If some person from the future came and told me I gotta do x even though it'll make my life hellish because it'll make the future a lot better for a whole lot of people, I imagine I'd have a hard time not complying, but if my options are a) comfy, cushiony present and certain bad future for other people or b) unknown but most likely bad present and unknown future that might be better or worse then I'll end up going with option a).
So basically the revolution isn't gonna happen until things get significantly more dire. Seems like there's somewhat of a historical consensus that the French Revolution was triggered by a volcano contributing to famine, sooo..
|
Norway28272 Posts
On January 28 2023 07:31 Sermokala wrote: I don't buy the slaughter and chaos of the revolution as well as the decades of war it sparked as being positive. Saying things were better 50 year later after it just seems silly and obvious regardless.
Britian exported a stable system of democratic governance and the industrial revolution. The vast system of global trade that they created as well had a far greater effect then warlords and wonton executions did.
I mean hard to say anything with certainty but I don't think the move from absolute monarchy in Europe happens nearly as quickly without the French revolution or a similar event. I also think this is a pov with a reasonable degree of consensus attached to it. I don't just mean 'better 50 years later', but 'better as a consequence' 50 years later. I might say the same about the black plague, tbh - terrible to live through, but probably gave somewhat better living conditions for the following generations. (This one is harder to know because data is harder to come by and less conclusive, and some points both ways. Either way rest assured that I'm not arguing for the benefits of killing a third of all people.)
But anyway, it's not a particularly controversial opinion that some revolutions have eventually yielded positive results even if they initially caused harm, and accepting this does not mean you, or I, must accept that a revolution of today would be positive or desirable. It can, however, perhaps lead to some understanding of why some people consider themselves revolutionary, even if you can assume that those people aren't actually entirely blind to how damaging their revolution might be to many people inhabiting our current day society.
|
On January 28 2023 07:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I do believe the french revolution was ultimately good.
I'd rather live the two decades preceding it than the two decades following it, but I'd rather live 50 years after than 50 years before. An anti-capitalist revolution would, even in an ideal scenario, play out much the same - a whole lot of initial pain, but with a hope for a significantly improved more distant future. that was what over 300 years ago? And basically every revolution since has ended with just a different authoritarian and different branding. Seams like a huge risk when we have a pretty good blueprint of how things could be a lot better without the massive loss of life. We also now live with much bigger weapons of mass destruction and war is really really really bad for the environment so I'm not sure that goes well for humanity. The reason this idea is not popular is not because people think the now is good, or that they do not think that GH's end point is good. It is that history has indicated that fighting a communist revolution does end at the GH end point. It ends with a ruling class and everyone not friends or related to that ruling class as equally poor. Some sort of this is what we would do different is required. It is also required that you openly talk about the rather obvious to most failings of the past communist revolutions and the current communist countries. Talking positively about the leadership and outcomes of the USSR, China, NK, Venezuela so on takes an incredible amount of scapegoating which is hard for almost everyone to believe. Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 07:02 Mohdoo wrote: I think it is important for people to remember we are all benefiting from the sacrifice of people who lived before us. I think it is a moral imperative to make decisions which aim to make the future better than the current reality. There is nuance to that, but I think generally speaking, people should not choose not to do something due to growing pains.
That being said, the pains that are felt vary a lot between people. It is easy to say "hey, go fight in the war to save the world", but a lot of those soldiers are going to die. Similarly, many parents would choose not to throw their lives away for a revolution that may not work and may make their children's lives worse. I am not sure how the ethics of a decision like that work out, but I think it is worth considering.
People in the past, such as the French Revolution, decided the future was worth fighting for, even if it made the near-term a lot worse. We should strive to follow in their footsteps rather than selfishly label our current condition the most important one. I'm all for change, it could be so much better. My issue is that people do not seem to understand how actually bad it was, or how actually bad it is many places in the world. It can and has been much worse than it is in a liberal democracy. I do not see how anyone could argue it is better in the self proclaimed communist countries that exist. I get that argument for social democracies. I get the argument they could go further.
I don't think it is productive to compare the US to North Korea or Venezuela etc because they are dumpsters for a variety of reasons and its not like they are the same country other than their economic system. However, I am not convinced a communist revolution would be an improvement even disregarding that.
I truly do think that a wealth tax and publicly financed elections, where private donations just aren't a thing anymore, is the most direct path to restoring democracy and empowering the working class. In many ways, I think revolution distractions only inhibit the clearest, easiest, most guaranteed path to freeing democracy from oligarchy. And I think it is entirely fair to consider the western world as a whole an oligarchy.
On January 28 2023 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 07:02 Mohdoo wrote: I think it is important for people to remember we are all benefiting from the sacrifice of people who lived before us. I think it is a moral imperative to make decisions which aim to make the future better than the current reality. There is nuance to that, but I think generally speaking, people should not choose not to do something due to growing pains.
That being said, the pains that are felt vary a lot between people. It is easy to say "hey, go fight in the war to save the world", but a lot of those soldiers are going to die. Similarly, many parents would choose not to throw their lives away for a revolution that may not work and may make their children's lives worse. I am not sure how the ethics of a decision like that work out, but I think it is worth considering.
People in the past, such as the French Revolution, decided the future was worth fighting for, even if it made the near-term a lot worse. We should strive to follow in their footsteps rather than selfishly label our current condition the most important one. The problem is that the future of each option is unknown and it's not a given that the post-sacrifice future is much if any better, and then, the only situation that makes a revolution tempting is one where the present also sucks - even if one acknowledges that the current future is likely to suck. If some person from the future came and told me I gotta do x even though it'll make my life hellish because it'll make the future a lot better for a whole lot of people, I imagine I'd have a hard time not complying, but if my options are a) comfy, cushiony present and certain bad future for other people or b) unknown but most likely bad present and unknown future that might be better or worse then I'll end up going with option a). So basically the revolution isn't gonna happen until things get significantly more dire. Seems like there's somewhat of a historical consensus that the French Revolution was triggered by a volcano contributing to famine, sooo..
Sorry if I was unclear, but I am not necessarily saying "And so we ought to conduct revolution right now". I am saying that once someone has decided revolution is a necessary, beneficial thing, it is a moral imperative to carry it out rather than shying away to selfishly maintain the life you currently have.
|
On January 28 2023 07:31 Sermokala wrote: Britian exported a stable system of democratic governance and the industrial revolution. The vast system of global trade that they created as well had a far greater effect then warlords and wonton executions did. First time hearing about the wonton executions. Amazing that people felt so strongly about dumplings.
|
On January 28 2023 08:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 07:31 Sermokala wrote: I don't buy the slaughter and chaos of the revolution as well as the decades of war it sparked as being positive. Saying things were better 50 year later after it just seems silly and obvious regardless.
Britian exported a stable system of democratic governance and the industrial revolution. The vast system of global trade that they created as well had a far greater effect then warlords and wonton executions did. I mean hard to say anything with certainty but I don't think the move from absolute monarchy in Europe happens nearly as quickly without the French revolution or a similar event. I also think this is a pov with a reasonable degree of consensus attached to it. I don't just mean 'better 50 years later', but 'better as a consequence' 50 years later. I might say the same about the black plague, tbh - terrible to live through, but probably gave somewhat better living conditions for the following generations. (This one is harder to know because data is harder to come by and less conclusive, and some points both ways. Either way rest assured that I'm not arguing for the benefits of killing a third of all people.) But anyway, it's not a particularly controversial opinion that some revolutions have eventually yielded positive results even if they initially caused harm, and accepting this does not mean you, or I, must accept that a revolution of today would be positive or desirable. It can, however, perhaps lead to some understanding of why some people consider themselves revolutionary, even if you can assume that those people aren't actually entirely blind to how damaging their revolution might be to many people inhabiting our current day society.
I think that the credible threat of revolution usually has far more positive results than revolution itself. Nothing makes the upper strata of society more likely to share than a credible threat that they might lose everything.
We have seen this in the 20th century. In my opinion, the mere existence of the soviet union had a massive positive effect on workers rights in europe. Because there was always the very credible threat of a communist revolution, which made the capital much more interested in sharing some of their wealth with the rest of society, and stopped some of its unbridled greed. Better to share a bit and convince most of the population that what is going on is good for everyone, then risk them getting angry and burning it all down.
What happens when that threat disappears is what we can see in the last 30 years. Workers rights get eroded, wealth inequality grows to absurd levels. Because they know that there is nothing they have to fear.
|
On January 28 2023 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I do believe the french revolution was ultimately good.
I'd rather live the two decades preceding it than the two decades following it, but I'd rather live 50 years after than 50 years before. An anti-capitalist revolution would, even in an ideal scenario, play out much the same - a whole lot of initial pain, but with a hope for a significantly improved more distant future. That's some... revisionist history there. The French Revolution also brought about Napoleon Bonaparte coming to power, naming himself emperor and setting about conquering all of Europe. He then ultimately LOST, and France eventually settled down to a parliamentary democracy. While it's easy to say that this all worked out for the best, it may very well ALSO have worked out for the best WITHOUT 50 years of instability and war. Especially as the Enlightenment was going on regardless of what France was doing...
I'd love to read the thesis that says the French Revolution was necessary for the adoption of Enlightenment political ideas like separation of church and state, and separation of powers in Europe. Especially because the American Revolution had already happened (and served as an inspiration for the French one), and that seems to be the "successful" model for post-Napoleonic constitutions. Of course, all ALSO heavily influenced by Voltaire, Montesquieu and other French Enlightenment authors (who all predated the Revolution).
|
On January 28 2023 08:44 Simberto wrote: What happens when that threat disappears is what we can see in the last 30 years. Workers rights get eroded, wealth inequality grows to absurd levels. Because they know that there is nothing they have to fear.
To be fair, the neoliberal turn happened with the USSR fully alive and kicking.
One might argue that neoliberalism might not have survived (given that it achieved none of its promises of returning to 50s/60s prosperity) if it wasn't for the historical luck of Ronald Reagan being around when the USSR went under, but I'm not sure.
|
On January 28 2023 08:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 07:07 JimmiC wrote:On January 28 2023 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I do believe the french revolution was ultimately good.
I'd rather live the two decades preceding it than the two decades following it, but I'd rather live 50 years after than 50 years before. An anti-capitalist revolution would, even in an ideal scenario, play out much the same - a whole lot of initial pain, but with a hope for a significantly improved more distant future. that was what over 300 years ago? And basically every revolution since has ended with just a different authoritarian and different branding. Seams like a huge risk when we have a pretty good blueprint of how things could be a lot better without the massive loss of life. We also now live with much bigger weapons of mass destruction and war is really really really bad for the environment so I'm not sure that goes well for humanity. The reason this idea is not popular is not because people think the now is good, or that they do not think that GH's end point is good. It is that history has indicated that fighting a communist revolution does end at the GH end point. It ends with a ruling class and everyone not friends or related to that ruling class as equally poor. Some sort of this is what we would do different is required. It is also required that you openly talk about the rather obvious to most failings of the past communist revolutions and the current communist countries. Talking positively about the leadership and outcomes of the USSR, China, NK, Venezuela so on takes an incredible amount of scapegoating which is hard for almost everyone to believe. On January 28 2023 07:02 Mohdoo wrote: I think it is important for people to remember we are all benefiting from the sacrifice of people who lived before us. I think it is a moral imperative to make decisions which aim to make the future better than the current reality. There is nuance to that, but I think generally speaking, people should not choose not to do something due to growing pains.
That being said, the pains that are felt vary a lot between people. It is easy to say "hey, go fight in the war to save the world", but a lot of those soldiers are going to die. Similarly, many parents would choose not to throw their lives away for a revolution that may not work and may make their children's lives worse. I am not sure how the ethics of a decision like that work out, but I think it is worth considering.
People in the past, such as the French Revolution, decided the future was worth fighting for, even if it made the near-term a lot worse. We should strive to follow in their footsteps rather than selfishly label our current condition the most important one. I'm all for change, it could be so much better. My issue is that people do not seem to understand how actually bad it was, or how actually bad it is many places in the world. It can and has been much worse than it is in a liberal democracy. I do not see how anyone could argue it is better in the self proclaimed communist countries that exist. I get that argument for social democracies. I get the argument they could go further. I don't think it is productive to compare the US to North Korea or Venezuela etc because they are dumpsters for a variety of reasons and its not like they are the same country other than their economic system. However, I am not convinced a communist revolution would be an improvement even disregarding that. I truly do think that a wealth tax and publicly financed elections, where private donations just aren't a thing anymore, is the most direct path to restoring democracy and empowering the working class. In many ways, I think revolution distractions only inhibit the clearest, easiest, most guaranteed path to freeing democracy from oligarchy. And I think it is entirely fair to consider the western world as a whole an oligarchy. Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 28 2023 07:02 Mohdoo wrote: I think it is important for people to remember we are all benefiting from the sacrifice of people who lived before us. I think it is a moral imperative to make decisions which aim to make the future better than the current reality. There is nuance to that, but I think generally speaking, people should not choose not to do something due to growing pains.
That being said, the pains that are felt vary a lot between people. It is easy to say "hey, go fight in the war to save the world", but a lot of those soldiers are going to die. Similarly, many parents would choose not to throw their lives away for a revolution that may not work and may make their children's lives worse. I am not sure how the ethics of a decision like that work out, but I think it is worth considering. People in the past, such as the French Revolution, decided the future was worth fighting for, even if it made the near-term a lot worse. We should strive to follow in their footsteps rather than selfishly label our current condition the most important one. The problem is that the future of each option is unknown and it's not a given that the post-sacrifice future is much if any better, and then, the only situation that makes a revolution tempting is one where the present also sucks - even if one acknowledges that the current future is likely to suck. If some person from the future came and told me I gotta do x even though it'll make my life hellish because it'll make the future a lot better for a whole lot of people, I imagine I'd have a hard time not complying, but if my options are a) comfy, cushiony present and certain bad future for other people or b) unknown but most likely bad present and unknown future that might be better or worse then I'll end up going with option a). So basically the revolution isn't gonna happen until things get significantly more dire. Seems like there's somewhat of a historical consensus that the French Revolution was triggered by a volcano contributing to famine, sooo.. Sorry if I was unclear, but I am not necessarily saying "And so we ought to conduct revolution right now". I am saying that once someone has decided revolution is a necessary, beneficial thing, it is a moral imperative to carry it out rather than shying away to selfishly maintain the life you currently have.
I was not comparing the US to them, I was stating that talking about those countries as positive or better then current US or any western democracy is not a compelling argument because like you said they are dumpsters. If you are trying to sell communism to people, especially to get them to the point of revolting you need to acknowledge the obviously bad parts and explain how you are going to get rid of those. Glossing over, or worse yet blaming capitalism is going to lose you people not gain them.
|
On January 28 2023 08:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I do believe the french revolution was ultimately good.
I'd rather live the two decades preceding it than the two decades following it, but I'd rather live 50 years after than 50 years before. An anti-capitalist revolution would, even in an ideal scenario, play out much the same - a whole lot of initial pain, but with a hope for a significantly improved more distant future. That's some... revisionist history there. The French Revolution also brought about Napoleon Bonaparte coming to power, naming himself emperor and setting about conquering all of Europe. He then ultimately LOST, and France eventually settled down to a parliamentary democracy. While it's easy to say that this all worked out for the best, it may very well ALSO have worked out for the best WITHOUT 50 years of instability and war. Especially as the Enlightenment was going on regardless of what France was doing... I'd love to read the thesis that says the French Revolution was necessary for the adoption of Enlightenment political ideas like separation of church and state, and separation of powers in Europe. Especially because the American Revolution had already happened (and served as an inspiration for the French one), and that seems to be the "successful" model for post-Napoleonic constitutions. Of course, all ALSO heavily influenced by Voltaire, Montesquieu and other French Enlightenment authors (who all predated the Revolution). Would you have one with the opposite? It would also be a good read. Or even like a good overview I could through in an hour. It would be appreciated and then I could see if I wanted to go deeper. feel like I've only scratched the service on that.
|
Norway28272 Posts
On January 28 2023 08:44 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 08:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 28 2023 07:31 Sermokala wrote: I don't buy the slaughter and chaos of the revolution as well as the decades of war it sparked as being positive. Saying things were better 50 year later after it just seems silly and obvious regardless.
Britian exported a stable system of democratic governance and the industrial revolution. The vast system of global trade that they created as well had a far greater effect then warlords and wonton executions did. I mean hard to say anything with certainty but I don't think the move from absolute monarchy in Europe happens nearly as quickly without the French revolution or a similar event. I also think this is a pov with a reasonable degree of consensus attached to it. I don't just mean 'better 50 years later', but 'better as a consequence' 50 years later. I might say the same about the black plague, tbh - terrible to live through, but probably gave somewhat better living conditions for the following generations. (This one is harder to know because data is harder to come by and less conclusive, and some points both ways. Either way rest assured that I'm not arguing for the benefits of killing a third of all people.) But anyway, it's not a particularly controversial opinion that some revolutions have eventually yielded positive results even if they initially caused harm, and accepting this does not mean you, or I, must accept that a revolution of today would be positive or desirable. It can, however, perhaps lead to some understanding of why some people consider themselves revolutionary, even if you can assume that those people aren't actually entirely blind to how damaging their revolution might be to many people inhabiting our current day society. I think that the credible threat of revolution usually has far more positive results than revolution itself. Nothing makes the upper strata of society more likely to share than a credible threat that they might lose everything. We have seen this in the 20th century. In my opinion, the mere existence of the soviet union had a massive positive effect on workers rights in europe. Because there was always the very credible threat of a communist revolution, which made the capital much more interested in sharing some of their wealth with the rest of society, and stopped some of its unbridled greed. Better to share a bit and convince most of the population that what is going on is good for everyone, then risk them getting angry and burning it all down. What happens when that threat disappears is what we can see in the last 30 years. Workers rights get eroded, wealth inequality grows to absurd levels. Because they know that there is nothing they have to fear.
This was definitely the case in Norway. The threat of a socialist revolution made the governing, non-socialist parties give such significant concessions that it effectively turned our communist labor party into social democrats.
And also the latter part, sadly.
Acro: I prefer 'most likely a significant contributing factor' to 'necessary'. There's no certainty. However, I would like to point out that even though Napoleon went all Emperor, he still differed significantly from the absolute monarchies. He wasn't granted his position of power through some divine providence, but through public support. This, that rulers need the support of the people to rule (does not mean they get this support through embodying enlightenment ideals), was a very significant change which can more directly be attributed to the french revolution.
|
On January 28 2023 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I do believe the french revolution was ultimately good.
I'd rather live the two decades preceding it than the two decades following it, but I'd rather live 50 years after than 50 years before. An anti-capitalist revolution would, even in an ideal scenario, play out much the same - a whole lot of initial pain, but with a hope for a significantly improved more distant future. Interesting question. Very hard to answer. It's a no brained to rather live through the last days of the Ancien régime than the terror and genocide that followed the revolution. 50 years later you'd still be in the July Monarchy. If you had said living after 1848 or before, then I would have agreed with you.
|
On January 28 2023 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I do believe the french revolution was ultimately good.
I'd rather live the two decades preceding it than the two decades following it, but I'd rather live 50 years after than 50 years before. An anti-capitalist revolution would, even in an ideal scenario, play out much the same - a whole lot of initial pain, but with a hope for a significantly improved more distant future. 50 years after the french revolution you were in 1839 during the reign of Louis Phillipe. That’s really not a glamorous time in French history. I would say that between 1739 and 1839, your life and rights would have improved more in England than in France.
Regardless, the causes, consequences and events of the French Revolution are extremely complex, and don’t have anything to do with the usual historiography that current revolution enthusiasts feed on. It’s much more the story of a country struggling to enter modernity and to build an efficient administration than the marxist idea of the bourgeoisie replacing the aristocracy, or even the freedom loving people overthrowing tyranny.
For all involved it was an absolutely horrendous time, and its direct legacy were the napoleonic era. It’s not “good” nor “bad” (historical events and chain of events are neither), but one has to know nothing at all to wish to live something like that.
On January 28 2023 17:24 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I do believe the french revolution was ultimately good.
I'd rather live the two decades preceding it than the two decades following it, but I'd rather live 50 years after than 50 years before. An anti-capitalist revolution would, even in an ideal scenario, play out much the same - a whole lot of initial pain, but with a hope for a significantly improved more distant future. Interesting question. Very hard to answer. It's a no brained to rather live through the last days of the Ancien régime than the terror and genocide that followed the revolution. 50 years later you'd still be in the July Monarchy. If you had said living after 1848 or before, then I would have agreed with you. After 48, you would have lived the Second Empire, which was not only an illiberal dictatorship but also arguably the most corrupt era in French history. Again, you would have done much better in England concerning your freedom and rights.
Liberal democracy truly started in France in 1870, and its first act was to massacre the Paris socialist proletariat in one of the bloodiest and most ruthless civil wars in France (Just to keep the record straight).
If you have a cleae vision and idea of the French Revolution, you don’t know enough about the French Revolution. That’s what makes it such a fascinating era.
|
|
|
|