|
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 |
Norway28747 Posts
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.
The 50 years number was meant more figuratively than literally 
|
On January 28 2023 17:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 17:24 Elroi 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. 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. The 50 years number was meant more figuratively than literally
The point stands though. You fell rather well with 50 years, because Napoleon, Charles X, Louis XVIII and Napoleon the third were arguably worse than Louis Phillipe. In terms of political liberty and justice, you would need to wait the third republic to see anything resembling a liberal regime and a break from autocratic rule.
By then the USA had been - with the black spot of slavery, of course - a functional liberal democracy for a hundred years and never required the guillotine, the sans culottes, Robespierre and all those niceties to get there.
It’s not to say the French Revolution achieved nothing, but what it achieved has more to do with building a modern state with an efficient administration were the ancient regime was all archaism and traditions than freeing people from oppression and whatnot.
|
Norway28747 Posts
Ya, but simberto's point is part of my original point, even though it was unstated. I didn't mean for my argument to be france-specific. Other European nations got less of the chaos and destruction but much of the 'ohshit let's try not to have that happen here too-changes'.
|
On January 28 2023 17:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 17:24 Elroi 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. 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. The 50 years number was meant more figuratively than literally
Ok, but that is even more meaningless. Either way, you're ascribing the ideals to the event, and we can probably agree that ideals such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man are good. But they were almost instantly trampled on by the implementation of the French Revolution, which was pretty universally terrible for everyone.
Let's simplify it. I'd rather live in West Germany (let's exclude east for the sake of not muddying the water) 10 years after the end of WW2 than 10 years before (so 1935 vs 1955). Yet that doesn't mean WW2 was for the greater good. It was a horrendous episode in history.
Now obviously the ideals for which the German Reich fought were *also* despicable, so it's quite easy to condemn everything about it. However, that doesn't change that the BRD came out the other end a better nation.
The main difference in this regard is probably that you could make a point that the BRD improved despite WW2, whereas the third republic was perhaps better because of the French Revolution.
However, that brings us back to the ideals. The reason the third republic was an improvement was because they finally settled on a political solution that actually enshrined and protected the stated ideals of the revolution (albeit modernized, as one would hope after 80 years had passed).
I refuse to believe that the misery and genocide of the terrors, Napoleonic wars, and later atrocities of another few governments as they experimented through most of the 19th century, were the required way to reach something resembling the third republic. Especially as England managed to get there with far less bloodshed.
There is another major factor of the French Revolution, of course, it served somewhat as inspiration for a number of other Revolutionary movements. Bolívar (South America) and Kolokotronis (Greece) in particular credit the event as an inspiration. However, they mainly took inspiration from the ideals of Voltaire (and other enlightenment philosophers), rather than from the actual implementation. At best one can credit the French Revolution for showing it was actually possible to stand up against the system. Something the Bolsheviks definitely took to heart. The French Revolution may have introduced the world to revolution (not just against a leader, but to an entire system of living), it also introduced the world to totalitarianism.
Are there ways of doing the former but avoiding descending into the latter? I don't know, as I don't know of any revolutions (in the sense of the French one) that managed.
So, no, I am definitely not a revolutionary. However much is currently wrong with the world, the equivalent of storming the Bastille, occupying Petrograd or even Tahrir Square, is not a solution I believe has any hope of improving things.
|
United States43611 Posts
On January 28 2023 23:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 17:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 28 2023 17:24 Elroi 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. 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. The 50 years number was meant more figuratively than literally Ok, but that is even more meaningless. Either way, you're ascribing the ideals to the event, and we can probably agree that ideals such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man are good. But they were almost instantly trampled on by the implementation of the French Revolution, which was pretty universally terrible for everyone. Let's simplify it. I'd rather live in West Germany (let's exclude east for the sake of not muddying the water) 10 years after the end of WW2 than 10 years before (so 1935 vs 1955). Yet that doesn't mean WW2 was for the greater good. It was a horrendous episode in history. Now obviously the ideals for which the German Reich fought were *also* despicable, so it's quite easy to condemn everything about it. However, that doesn't change that the BRD came out the other end a better nation. The main difference in this regard is probably that you could make a point that the BRD improved despite WW2, whereas the third republic was perhaps better because of the French Revolution. However, that brings us back to the ideals. The reason the third republic was an improvement was because they finally settled on a political solution that actually enshrined and protected the stated ideals of the revolution (albeit modernized, as one would hope after 80 years had passed). I refuse to believe that the misery and genocide of the terrors, Napoleonic wars, and later atrocities of another few governments as they experimented through most of the 19th century, were the required way to reach something resembling the third republic. Especially as England managed to get there with far less bloodshed. There is another major factor of the French Revolution, of course, it served somewhat as inspiration for a number of other Revolutionary movements. Bolívar (South America) and Kolokotronis (Greece) in particular credit the event as an inspiration. However, they mainly took inspiration from the ideals of Voltaire (and other enlightenment philosophers), rather than from the actual implementation. At best one can credit the French Revolution for showing it was actually possible to stand up against the system. Something the Bolsheviks definitely took to heart. The French Revolution may have introduced the world to revolution (not just against a leader, but to an entire system of living), it also introduced the world to totalitarianism. Are there ways of doing the former but avoiding descending into the latter? I don't know, as I don't know of any revolutions (in the sense of the French one) that managed. So, no, I am definitely not a revolutionary. However much is currently wrong with the world, the equivalent of storming the Bastille, occupying Petrograd or even Tahrir Square, is not a solution I believe has any hope of improving things.
It feels like you’ve forgotten that England beheaded its king too. You’re framing it as one nation with revolutionary overturning monarchy and the other with a slow evolution of democracy. It’s not so simple.
|
On January 28 2023 23:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Ya, but simberto's point is part of my original point, even though it was unstated. I didn't mean for my argument to be france-specific. Other European nations got less of the chaos and destruction but much of the 'ohshit let's try not to have that happen here too-changes'.
Well Europe after the Revolution went into an arch-conservative, arch-absolutist period until 1848 known as the age of Metternich. The whole ideological construction was based on the premisses that any compromise made to the liberals would lead to the sans culottes and the guillotine.
The Revolution didn’t invent liberalism, and if anything it froze for over a generation all perspectives of liberal advances (constitutional government, the rule of law etc) not only in France but across Europe.
So again. It’s complicated. We don’t owe democracy and liberalism to the french revolution, and there are many narrative in which it actually delayed their march considerably.
|
On January 29 2023 00:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2023 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On January 28 2023 17:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 28 2023 17:24 Elroi 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. 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. The 50 years number was meant more figuratively than literally Ok, but that is even more meaningless. Either way, you're ascribing the ideals to the event, and we can probably agree that ideals such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man are good. But they were almost instantly trampled on by the implementation of the French Revolution, which was pretty universally terrible for everyone. Let's simplify it. I'd rather live in West Germany (let's exclude east for the sake of not muddying the water) 10 years after the end of WW2 than 10 years before (so 1935 vs 1955). Yet that doesn't mean WW2 was for the greater good. It was a horrendous episode in history. Now obviously the ideals for which the German Reich fought were *also* despicable, so it's quite easy to condemn everything about it. However, that doesn't change that the BRD came out the other end a better nation. The main difference in this regard is probably that you could make a point that the BRD improved despite WW2, whereas the third republic was perhaps better because of the French Revolution. However, that brings us back to the ideals. The reason the third republic was an improvement was because they finally settled on a political solution that actually enshrined and protected the stated ideals of the revolution (albeit modernized, as one would hope after 80 years had passed). I refuse to believe that the misery and genocide of the terrors, Napoleonic wars, and later atrocities of another few governments as they experimented through most of the 19th century, were the required way to reach something resembling the third republic. Especially as England managed to get there with far less bloodshed. There is another major factor of the French Revolution, of course, it served somewhat as inspiration for a number of other Revolutionary movements. Bolívar (South America) and Kolokotronis (Greece) in particular credit the event as an inspiration. However, they mainly took inspiration from the ideals of Voltaire (and other enlightenment philosophers), rather than from the actual implementation. At best one can credit the French Revolution for showing it was actually possible to stand up against the system. Something the Bolsheviks definitely took to heart. The French Revolution may have introduced the world to revolution (not just against a leader, but to an entire system of living), it also introduced the world to totalitarianism. Are there ways of doing the former but avoiding descending into the latter? I don't know, as I don't know of any revolutions (in the sense of the French one) that managed. So, no, I am definitely not a revolutionary. However much is currently wrong with the world, the equivalent of storming the Bastille, occupying Petrograd or even Tahrir Square, is not a solution I believe has any hope of improving things. It feels like you’ve forgotten that England beheaded its king too. You’re framing it as one nation with revolutionary overturning monarchy and the other with a slow evolution of democracy. It’s not so simple.
Did I say "entirely bloodless"? No, I said "far less bloodshed". Cromwell was a tyrant, but was basically Mother Teresa compared to the Jacobins.
Or do you contest that the 1630s-40s were just as awful for England as the French Revolution was for France? If that is not your point, I fail to see the entire point of your whataboutism.
|
United States43611 Posts
On January 29 2023 00:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2023 00:03 KwarK wrote:On January 28 2023 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On January 28 2023 17:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 28 2023 17:24 Elroi 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. 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. The 50 years number was meant more figuratively than literally Ok, but that is even more meaningless. Either way, you're ascribing the ideals to the event, and we can probably agree that ideals such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man are good. But they were almost instantly trampled on by the implementation of the French Revolution, which was pretty universally terrible for everyone. Let's simplify it. I'd rather live in West Germany (let's exclude east for the sake of not muddying the water) 10 years after the end of WW2 than 10 years before (so 1935 vs 1955). Yet that doesn't mean WW2 was for the greater good. It was a horrendous episode in history. Now obviously the ideals for which the German Reich fought were *also* despicable, so it's quite easy to condemn everything about it. However, that doesn't change that the BRD came out the other end a better nation. The main difference in this regard is probably that you could make a point that the BRD improved despite WW2, whereas the third republic was perhaps better because of the French Revolution. However, that brings us back to the ideals. The reason the third republic was an improvement was because they finally settled on a political solution that actually enshrined and protected the stated ideals of the revolution (albeit modernized, as one would hope after 80 years had passed). I refuse to believe that the misery and genocide of the terrors, Napoleonic wars, and later atrocities of another few governments as they experimented through most of the 19th century, were the required way to reach something resembling the third republic. Especially as England managed to get there with far less bloodshed. There is another major factor of the French Revolution, of course, it served somewhat as inspiration for a number of other Revolutionary movements. Bolívar (South America) and Kolokotronis (Greece) in particular credit the event as an inspiration. However, they mainly took inspiration from the ideals of Voltaire (and other enlightenment philosophers), rather than from the actual implementation. At best one can credit the French Revolution for showing it was actually possible to stand up against the system. Something the Bolsheviks definitely took to heart. The French Revolution may have introduced the world to revolution (not just against a leader, but to an entire system of living), it also introduced the world to totalitarianism. Are there ways of doing the former but avoiding descending into the latter? I don't know, as I don't know of any revolutions (in the sense of the French one) that managed. So, no, I am definitely not a revolutionary. However much is currently wrong with the world, the equivalent of storming the Bastille, occupying Petrograd or even Tahrir Square, is not a solution I believe has any hope of improving things. It feels like you’ve forgotten that England beheaded its king too. You’re framing it as one nation with revolutionary overturning monarchy and the other with a slow evolution of democracy. It’s not so simple. Did I say "entirely bloodless"? No, I said "far less bloodshed". Cromwell was a tyrant, but was basically Mother Teresa compared to the Jacobins. Or do you contest that the 1630s-40s were just as awful for England as the French Revolution was for France? If that is not your point, I fail to see the entire point of your whataboutism.
I don’t think you know what whataboutism is.
You’re setting up two contrasting examples, France and England, to represent two contrasting models, revolutionary and non revolutionary. Pointing out that the English had a revolution (several actually but who’s counting) isn’t whataboutism, it’s a devastating hole in your model.
|
United States24755 Posts
But the republicans don't know what whataboutism is either.
|
On January 29 2023 02:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2023 00:50 Acrofales wrote:On January 29 2023 00:03 KwarK wrote:On January 28 2023 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On January 28 2023 17:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 28 2023 17:24 Elroi 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. 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. The 50 years number was meant more figuratively than literally Ok, but that is even more meaningless. Either way, you're ascribing the ideals to the event, and we can probably agree that ideals such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man are good. But they were almost instantly trampled on by the implementation of the French Revolution, which was pretty universally terrible for everyone. Let's simplify it. I'd rather live in West Germany (let's exclude east for the sake of not muddying the water) 10 years after the end of WW2 than 10 years before (so 1935 vs 1955). Yet that doesn't mean WW2 was for the greater good. It was a horrendous episode in history. Now obviously the ideals for which the German Reich fought were *also* despicable, so it's quite easy to condemn everything about it. However, that doesn't change that the BRD came out the other end a better nation. The main difference in this regard is probably that you could make a point that the BRD improved despite WW2, whereas the third republic was perhaps better because of the French Revolution. However, that brings us back to the ideals. The reason the third republic was an improvement was because they finally settled on a political solution that actually enshrined and protected the stated ideals of the revolution (albeit modernized, as one would hope after 80 years had passed). I refuse to believe that the misery and genocide of the terrors, Napoleonic wars, and later atrocities of another few governments as they experimented through most of the 19th century, were the required way to reach something resembling the third republic. Especially as England managed to get there with far less bloodshed. There is another major factor of the French Revolution, of course, it served somewhat as inspiration for a number of other Revolutionary movements. Bolívar (South America) and Kolokotronis (Greece) in particular credit the event as an inspiration. However, they mainly took inspiration from the ideals of Voltaire (and other enlightenment philosophers), rather than from the actual implementation. At best one can credit the French Revolution for showing it was actually possible to stand up against the system. Something the Bolsheviks definitely took to heart. The French Revolution may have introduced the world to revolution (not just against a leader, but to an entire system of living), it also introduced the world to totalitarianism. Are there ways of doing the former but avoiding descending into the latter? I don't know, as I don't know of any revolutions (in the sense of the French one) that managed. So, no, I am definitely not a revolutionary. However much is currently wrong with the world, the equivalent of storming the Bastille, occupying Petrograd or even Tahrir Square, is not a solution I believe has any hope of improving things. It feels like you’ve forgotten that England beheaded its king too. You’re framing it as one nation with revolutionary overturning monarchy and the other with a slow evolution of democracy. It’s not so simple. Did I say "entirely bloodless"? No, I said "far less bloodshed". Cromwell was a tyrant, but was basically Mother Teresa compared to the Jacobins. Or do you contest that the 1630s-40s were just as awful for England as the French Revolution was for France? If that is not your point, I fail to see the entire point of your whataboutism. I don’t think you know what whataboutism is. You’re setting up two contrasting examples, France and England, to represent two contrasting models, revolutionary and non revolutionary. Pointing out that the English had a revolution (several actually but who’s counting) isn’t whataboutism, it’s a devastating hole in your model.
The english revolution was just a conflict between the king and its parliament. Its medium term result was just a clarification of the role of each. Well. Just like the french revolution in its infancy actually, before things got out of hands in the summer of 1789.
England didn’t become a liberal democracy because of the english revolution. Neither did France arguably.
I think both models are wrong.
The countries that really succeded their revolutions in the traditional sense of the word, in my opinion are Russia in 1917 and China. They really teared down an old order and built a new one that was simply not in the cards. It just also happens that in both cases the result was a complete nightmare.
|
The idea that the series of English revolutions and various rebellions over the centuries is equivalent to the french revolution I think is interesting.
Ironically thought I think that just fits them more into a comparison of incrementalism vs revolution for reform philosophies. There is a long, long series of changes from the magna carta until it became not just a part of government but the government.
|
On January 29 2023 02:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2023 00:50 Acrofales wrote:On January 29 2023 00:03 KwarK wrote:On January 28 2023 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On January 28 2023 17:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 28 2023 17:24 Elroi 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. 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. The 50 years number was meant more figuratively than literally Ok, but that is even more meaningless. Either way, you're ascribing the ideals to the event, and we can probably agree that ideals such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man are good. But they were almost instantly trampled on by the implementation of the French Revolution, which was pretty universally terrible for everyone. Let's simplify it. I'd rather live in West Germany (let's exclude east for the sake of not muddying the water) 10 years after the end of WW2 than 10 years before (so 1935 vs 1955). Yet that doesn't mean WW2 was for the greater good. It was a horrendous episode in history. Now obviously the ideals for which the German Reich fought were *also* despicable, so it's quite easy to condemn everything about it. However, that doesn't change that the BRD came out the other end a better nation. The main difference in this regard is probably that you could make a point that the BRD improved despite WW2, whereas the third republic was perhaps better because of the French Revolution. However, that brings us back to the ideals. The reason the third republic was an improvement was because they finally settled on a political solution that actually enshrined and protected the stated ideals of the revolution (albeit modernized, as one would hope after 80 years had passed). I refuse to believe that the misery and genocide of the terrors, Napoleonic wars, and later atrocities of another few governments as they experimented through most of the 19th century, were the required way to reach something resembling the third republic. Especially as England managed to get there with far less bloodshed. There is another major factor of the French Revolution, of course, it served somewhat as inspiration for a number of other Revolutionary movements. Bolívar (South America) and Kolokotronis (Greece) in particular credit the event as an inspiration. However, they mainly took inspiration from the ideals of Voltaire (and other enlightenment philosophers), rather than from the actual implementation. At best one can credit the French Revolution for showing it was actually possible to stand up against the system. Something the Bolsheviks definitely took to heart. The French Revolution may have introduced the world to revolution (not just against a leader, but to an entire system of living), it also introduced the world to totalitarianism. Are there ways of doing the former but avoiding descending into the latter? I don't know, as I don't know of any revolutions (in the sense of the French one) that managed. So, no, I am definitely not a revolutionary. However much is currently wrong with the world, the equivalent of storming the Bastille, occupying Petrograd or even Tahrir Square, is not a solution I believe has any hope of improving things. It feels like you’ve forgotten that England beheaded its king too. You’re framing it as one nation with revolutionary overturning monarchy and the other with a slow evolution of democracy. It’s not so simple. Did I say "entirely bloodless"? No, I said "far less bloodshed". Cromwell was a tyrant, but was basically Mother Teresa compared to the Jacobins. Or do you contest that the 1630s-40s were just as awful for England as the French Revolution was for France? If that is not your point, I fail to see the entire point of your whataboutism. I don’t think you know what whataboutism is. You’re setting up two contrasting examples, France and England, to represent two contrasting models, revolutionary and non revolutionary. Pointing out that the English had a revolution (several actually but who’s counting) isn’t whataboutism, it’s a devastating hole in your model.
Yes, two contrasting examples that differ in that the English didn't really get rid of anything except their king, which they replaced temporarily with a tyrant. It wasn't a squabble about changing the entire sociopolitical structure, but rather about redressing the power balance between existing institutions. Similar to many previous revolutions around the world where a monarch got beheaded and replaced with something else. It was a fairly gradual change, albeit accompanied by plenty of bloodshed, because that was simply the way governments changed hands in those days. We were supposed to have resolved a lot of that bloodshed with constitutional democracies... Meanwhile the French (at least, the Jacobins, the less radical revolutionary were satisfied with more gradual proposals) wanted to simultaneously abolish not just the monarchy but all the aristocracy, and additionally all influence the clergy might have on any level of government. To achieve that goal, they were willing to use extreme violence and terror.
The whataboutism is you trying to muddy the water by equating the English Revolution(s) and French Revolution with a flippant "well, the English also chopped off a king's head" as if that makes the two events the same. This is in a similar way to how Republicans like to "whatabout the Democrats who failed to pass laws legalizing abortion" whenever anybody brings up some news about how some red state passed another law adding more and more restrictions. Or, for that matter, the new "what about Biden having classified documents too"...
|
United States43611 Posts
On January 29 2023 03:56 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2023 02:30 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2023 00:50 Acrofales wrote:On January 29 2023 00:03 KwarK wrote:On January 28 2023 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On January 28 2023 17:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 28 2023 17:24 Elroi 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. 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. The 50 years number was meant more figuratively than literally Ok, but that is even more meaningless. Either way, you're ascribing the ideals to the event, and we can probably agree that ideals such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man are good. But they were almost instantly trampled on by the implementation of the French Revolution, which was pretty universally terrible for everyone. Let's simplify it. I'd rather live in West Germany (let's exclude east for the sake of not muddying the water) 10 years after the end of WW2 than 10 years before (so 1935 vs 1955). Yet that doesn't mean WW2 was for the greater good. It was a horrendous episode in history. Now obviously the ideals for which the German Reich fought were *also* despicable, so it's quite easy to condemn everything about it. However, that doesn't change that the BRD came out the other end a better nation. The main difference in this regard is probably that you could make a point that the BRD improved despite WW2, whereas the third republic was perhaps better because of the French Revolution. However, that brings us back to the ideals. The reason the third republic was an improvement was because they finally settled on a political solution that actually enshrined and protected the stated ideals of the revolution (albeit modernized, as one would hope after 80 years had passed). I refuse to believe that the misery and genocide of the terrors, Napoleonic wars, and later atrocities of another few governments as they experimented through most of the 19th century, were the required way to reach something resembling the third republic. Especially as England managed to get there with far less bloodshed. There is another major factor of the French Revolution, of course, it served somewhat as inspiration for a number of other Revolutionary movements. Bolívar (South America) and Kolokotronis (Greece) in particular credit the event as an inspiration. However, they mainly took inspiration from the ideals of Voltaire (and other enlightenment philosophers), rather than from the actual implementation. At best one can credit the French Revolution for showing it was actually possible to stand up against the system. Something the Bolsheviks definitely took to heart. The French Revolution may have introduced the world to revolution (not just against a leader, but to an entire system of living), it also introduced the world to totalitarianism. Are there ways of doing the former but avoiding descending into the latter? I don't know, as I don't know of any revolutions (in the sense of the French one) that managed. So, no, I am definitely not a revolutionary. However much is currently wrong with the world, the equivalent of storming the Bastille, occupying Petrograd or even Tahrir Square, is not a solution I believe has any hope of improving things. It feels like you’ve forgotten that England beheaded its king too. You’re framing it as one nation with revolutionary overturning monarchy and the other with a slow evolution of democracy. It’s not so simple. Did I say "entirely bloodless"? No, I said "far less bloodshed". Cromwell was a tyrant, but was basically Mother Teresa compared to the Jacobins. Or do you contest that the 1630s-40s were just as awful for England as the French Revolution was for France? If that is not your point, I fail to see the entire point of your whataboutism. I don’t think you know what whataboutism is. You’re setting up two contrasting examples, France and England, to represent two contrasting models, revolutionary and non revolutionary. Pointing out that the English had a revolution (several actually but who’s counting) isn’t whataboutism, it’s a devastating hole in your model. Yes, two contrasting examples that differ in that the English didn't really get rid of anything except their king, which they replaced temporarily with a tyrant. It wasn't a squabble about changing the entire sociopolitical structure, but rather about redressing the power balance between existing institutions. Similar to many previous revolutions around the world where a monarch got beheaded and replaced with something else. It was a fairly gradual change, albeit accompanied by plenty of bloodshed, because that was simply the way governments changed hands in those days. We were supposed to have resolved a lot of that bloodshed with constitutional democracies... Meanwhile the French (at least, the Jacobins, the less radical revolutionary were satisfied with more gradual proposals) wanted to simultaneously abolish not just the monarchy but all the aristocracy, and additionally all influence the clergy might have on any level of government. To achieve that goal, they were willing to use extreme violence and terror. The whataboutism is you trying to muddy the water by equating the English Revolution(s) and French Revolution with a flippant "well, the English also chopped off a king's head" as if that makes the two events the same. This is in a similar way to how Republicans like to "whatabout the Democrats who failed to pass laws legalizing abortion" whenever anybody brings up some news about how some red state passed another law adding more and more restrictions. Or, for that matter, the new "what about Biden having classified documents too"...
Again I think you’re really struggling with what whataboutism is. It’s not just when you disagree with something, it has to be truly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. English civil wars and revolutions are wholly relevant to the evolution of liberal democracy in England.
|
Besides, the king did absolutely everything in his power to be beheaded. Not comparable to the massacre of the royal family in France.
On January 29 2023 05:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2023 03:56 Acrofales wrote:On January 29 2023 02:30 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2023 00:50 Acrofales wrote:On January 29 2023 00:03 KwarK wrote:On January 28 2023 23:42 Acrofales wrote:On January 28 2023 17:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 28 2023 17:24 Elroi 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. 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. The 50 years number was meant more figuratively than literally Ok, but that is even more meaningless. Either way, you're ascribing the ideals to the event, and we can probably agree that ideals such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man are good. But they were almost instantly trampled on by the implementation of the French Revolution, which was pretty universally terrible for everyone. Let's simplify it. I'd rather live in West Germany (let's exclude east for the sake of not muddying the water) 10 years after the end of WW2 than 10 years before (so 1935 vs 1955). Yet that doesn't mean WW2 was for the greater good. It was a horrendous episode in history. Now obviously the ideals for which the German Reich fought were *also* despicable, so it's quite easy to condemn everything about it. However, that doesn't change that the BRD came out the other end a better nation. The main difference in this regard is probably that you could make a point that the BRD improved despite WW2, whereas the third republic was perhaps better because of the French Revolution. However, that brings us back to the ideals. The reason the third republic was an improvement was because they finally settled on a political solution that actually enshrined and protected the stated ideals of the revolution (albeit modernized, as one would hope after 80 years had passed). I refuse to believe that the misery and genocide of the terrors, Napoleonic wars, and later atrocities of another few governments as they experimented through most of the 19th century, were the required way to reach something resembling the third republic. Especially as England managed to get there with far less bloodshed. There is another major factor of the French Revolution, of course, it served somewhat as inspiration for a number of other Revolutionary movements. Bolívar (South America) and Kolokotronis (Greece) in particular credit the event as an inspiration. However, they mainly took inspiration from the ideals of Voltaire (and other enlightenment philosophers), rather than from the actual implementation. At best one can credit the French Revolution for showing it was actually possible to stand up against the system. Something the Bolsheviks definitely took to heart. The French Revolution may have introduced the world to revolution (not just against a leader, but to an entire system of living), it also introduced the world to totalitarianism. Are there ways of doing the former but avoiding descending into the latter? I don't know, as I don't know of any revolutions (in the sense of the French one) that managed. So, no, I am definitely not a revolutionary. However much is currently wrong with the world, the equivalent of storming the Bastille, occupying Petrograd or even Tahrir Square, is not a solution I believe has any hope of improving things. It feels like you’ve forgotten that England beheaded its king too. You’re framing it as one nation with revolutionary overturning monarchy and the other with a slow evolution of democracy. It’s not so simple. Did I say "entirely bloodless"? No, I said "far less bloodshed". Cromwell was a tyrant, but was basically Mother Teresa compared to the Jacobins. Or do you contest that the 1630s-40s were just as awful for England as the French Revolution was for France? If that is not your point, I fail to see the entire point of your whataboutism. I don’t think you know what whataboutism is. You’re setting up two contrasting examples, France and England, to represent two contrasting models, revolutionary and non revolutionary. Pointing out that the English had a revolution (several actually but who’s counting) isn’t whataboutism, it’s a devastating hole in your model. Yes, two contrasting examples that differ in that the English didn't really get rid of anything except their king, which they replaced temporarily with a tyrant. It wasn't a squabble about changing the entire sociopolitical structure, but rather about redressing the power balance between existing institutions. Similar to many previous revolutions around the world where a monarch got beheaded and replaced with something else. It was a fairly gradual change, albeit accompanied by plenty of bloodshed, because that was simply the way governments changed hands in those days. We were supposed to have resolved a lot of that bloodshed with constitutional democracies... Meanwhile the French (at least, the Jacobins, the less radical revolutionary were satisfied with more gradual proposals) wanted to simultaneously abolish not just the monarchy but all the aristocracy, and additionally all influence the clergy might have on any level of government. To achieve that goal, they were willing to use extreme violence and terror. The whataboutism is you trying to muddy the water by equating the English Revolution(s) and French Revolution with a flippant "well, the English also chopped off a king's head" as if that makes the two events the same. This is in a similar way to how Republicans like to "whatabout the Democrats who failed to pass laws legalizing abortion" whenever anybody brings up some news about how some red state passed another law adding more and more restrictions. Or, for that matter, the new "what about Biden having classified documents too"... Again I think you’re really struggling with what whataboutism is. It’s not just when you disagree with something, it has to be truly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. English civil wars and revolutions are wholly relevant to the evolution of liberal democracy in England.
This sounds to me like you revert to discussions about semantics because you have no real argument.
The discussion was about whether the revolution in France helped transform the country into a better place (Drone's thesis) and then people pointed to England as a counter example (pointing out that you don't have to go through decades of genocidal anarchy in the name of socialism to advance the country). But then you tried to counter that argument by equating the French revolution with the English revolution. When people point out that that is completely absurd you go off on a condescending tangent about whataboutism.
|
|
|
Cynically, the timing might have more to do with a need for campaign donations to cover his mounting legal bills rather than political savviness.
|
On January 30 2023 20:56 EnDeR_ wrote:Cynically, the timing might have more to do with a need for campaign donations to cover his mounting legal bills rather than political savviness.
It's in the window of announcing. At this point in 2019 Harris, Buttigieg, Gillibrand, and more had all already announced with Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, and Sanders announcing by February.
That said, his fundraising is always about grifting.
|
On January 30 2023 20:56 EnDeR_ wrote:Cynically, the timing might have more to do with a need for campaign donations to cover his mounting legal bills rather than political savviness.
Not to mention its the perfect shield for any investigation/indictments that may be coming.
|
I was going to leave it alone (and still largely am) but the revolution discussion made me wonder what people's actual objections are to socialist revolution in the US?
1. There's opposition to socialism itself.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within it's own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
I feel like those are the major/umbrella points of opposition I've encountered, but I'm curious if I'm missing any (they could easily be slipping my mind in the moment).
Are people familiar with objections to a socialist revolution in the US that don't fit one of those?
|
I think there's a lot of people who don't know what a socialist revolution would mean and therefore are instinctively against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
