Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2017, 01:36 AM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(09-04-2017 01:12 AM)Shirina Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 07:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, for fuck sake. Facepalm The French Revolution.

Which led to ... The Terror under Robespierre. I'm pretty sure the hundreds (thousands?) who were guillotined might have wished for a return to the monarchy. No doubt the rest of the population quaking with fear probably did -- but of course couldn't say so.

Once Robespierre was finally done away with, one thing led to another and ... Napoleon Bonaparte and all of Europe is at war, the ramifications stretching all the way to the shores of America.

No, as was stated, it never works.

Uh, did they or did they not overthrow the then current monarchy?

Yes? Then the revolution worked.

Unless you're holding them up against an unobtainable utopia, in which case the American revolution also failed.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 01:48 AM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(08-04-2017 01:01 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A check on the idea that the wealthy always get the advantage is that the poor will always outnumber the wealthy. If the poor are too desperate, they will rebel and overthrow government, if the poor are getting a raw deal their numbers outweigh the wealthy and hence they get to choose (by vote) the next government.

This doesn't work for a variety of reasons:

1) The poor are often too uneducated to cast a reasoned vote -- should they vote at all. Many are too busy surviving to be bothered with going to cast a ballot even if doing so would help them.

2) The poor often seem to have only a rudimentary idea of how the government even works; local and state congressional elections are simply beyond them. A great example of this is how North Carolina keeps voting in Democrat governors while voting in Republican state congressmen -- I mean, is this on purpose? I just can't fathom why it would be.

3) Being often uneducated, they are *highly* susceptible to propaganda -- and guess who controls that? Yeah, the wealthy. This is how the power-elite keeps the poor in check. This is never more true than for the political right which traditionally has *always* had the more robust propaganda apparatus.

And the political right knows precisely what tool to use in order to rally poor voters: Fear. Large heaping helpings of fear laced with impending predictions of disaster and doom should you vote for the other guy. The rural poor fall for this tactic like clockwork. Look at the states that consistently vote for right-wing candidates -- they are filled from border to border with the rural poor. The poorer they are, the more staunchly right-wing they vote -- and why? When such a vote is quite often against their own interests?

Because the wealthy have a stranglehold on the information they consume. Oh sure, there's the internet, but studies have shown that the internet is usually merely a political echo chamber and mutual admiration society were people go to hear their own opinions parroted back to them so they can feel good about their own viewpoints -- not to actually learn anything or research the candidates.

America would not be sitting here in this position now -- with the worst health care system in the industrialized world, one of the highest income gaps between rich and poor in the world, etc. -- if the poor ever acted as a check against the power-elite. Instead, we decided to vote in a president who wants to strip health care and services away from tens of millions of Americans and feed that money to the military and to tax breaks for the wealthy, one of the most brutal budgets ever proposed in modern American history.

Why would all those millions of poor voters do that to themselves?

Yeah, it just ... doesn't ... work.

"If my God exists, then the laws in the Bible should apply to everyone. I am certain my God exists, so ..." -- words of a theocratic fascist justifying theocratic fascism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Shirina's post
09-04-2017, 01:54 AM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(09-04-2017 01:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Uh, did they or did they not overthrow the then current monarchy?

Yes? Then the revolution worked.

Unless you're holding them up against an unobtainable utopia, in which case the American revolution also failed.

So ... they exchanged a king for a tyrant and a madman ... then exchanged him for a warmongering emperor.

I'm not suggesting that the French Revolution didn't change anything, but the poor were still poor. It wasn't until more progressive ideas much later emerged when the poor saw *real* benefit.

I don't think we have to settle for binary arguments -- either a completely successful revolution or an unobtainable utopia.

"If my God exists, then the laws in the Bible should apply to everyone. I am certain my God exists, so ..." -- words of a theocratic fascist justifying theocratic fascism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 02:28 AM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(09-04-2017 01:54 AM)Shirina Wrote:  So ... they exchanged a king for a tyrant and a madman ... then exchanged him for a warmongering emperor.

Warmongering emperor is only one side of him. The one everyone learns at school. But he was also the one who finally introduced the rule of law. The code Napoleon is still used and many European nations modelled their own civil laws following it. Napoleon also promoted science and it's advancement.

Napoleon was a multi facetted figure, but most of all one has to view him in comparison to his contemporaries. Apart from the parliamentary system in England, Europe was ruled by absolutistic monarchs, and after his defeat, they were busy rolling back on all the reforms he brought on. Many of them to the benefit of the people. Such as doing away with the medieval guild system for craftsmen, which made it near impossible for someone without connections to freely excercise their trade.

As for his warmongering, France already was at war when he came to power. What followed was more than a decade of peace deals and mutual declarations of war. Sometimes Napoleon did it, often times the others declared war on him.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes abaris's post
09-04-2017, 05:03 AM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(09-04-2017 02:28 AM)abaris Wrote:  Warmongering emperor is only one side of him. The one everyone learns at school. But he was also the one who finally introduced the rule of law. The code Napoleon is still used and many European nations modelled their own civil laws following it. Napoleon also promoted science and it's advancement.

Well, I don't know about that. Hmm. You might be right, but ...

Nah, I guess you're just right.

I honestly don't have any disagreements with anything you said. When I mentioned Napoleon being a warmonger, I had it in my head how it is always the poor who do all the fighting and dying so that the power-elite can obtain more power, riches, land, influence, etc. And when it's all over, the poor who survive are still poor and gained nothing.

Not a very spiffy deal for the peasantry. I can't remember, at the moment, if France ever had a system whereby officer ranks could be purchased, but I thought of that, as well. If this did happen in France, I kept imagining wealthy officers astride their mounts ordering men to fight while often taking minimal risks themselves. I'm fairly certain that sniping officers or targeting them deliberately was a big no-no during that era.

I have this massive tome (yeah, tome ... it's way too thick to be a mere book) that covers the history of France from just after the Revolution to the present day. I'm only on page (*checks*) 47. So yeah, I have a long way to go.

At any rate, my apologies for agreeing too soon (teehee!) I know it's often easier to keep things going when there's disagreement, but I can't find any worth quibbling over.

"If my God exists, then the laws in the Bible should apply to everyone. I am certain my God exists, so ..." -- words of a theocratic fascist justifying theocratic fascism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 05:09 AM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(09-04-2017 05:03 AM)Shirina Wrote:  Not a very spiffy deal for the peasantry. I can't remember, at the moment, if France ever had a system whereby officer ranks could be purchased, but I thought of that, as well. If this did happen in France, I kept imagining wealthy officers astride their mounts ordering men to fight while often taking minimal risks themselves. I'm fairly certain that sniping officers or targeting them deliberately was a big no-no during that era.

Not that this would have been his most shiny achievements, but Napoleon did away with that too. Becoming an officer was no longer a privilege but everyone could rise through the ranks. Some of his marshalls started out as common soldiers or low ranking officers.

It's one of the reasons why he won as many battles. Looking for talent, not birth rights.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 06:13 AM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(09-04-2017 05:09 AM)abaris Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 05:03 AM)Shirina Wrote:  Not a very spiffy deal for the peasantry. I can't remember, at the moment, if France ever had a system whereby officer ranks could be purchased, but I thought of that, as well. If this did happen in France, I kept imagining wealthy officers astride their mounts ordering men to fight while often taking minimal risks themselves. I'm fairly certain that sniping officers or targeting them deliberately was a big no-no during that era.

Not that this would have been his most shiny achievements, but Napoleon did away with that too. Becoming an officer was no longer a privilege but everyone could rise through the ranks. Some of his marshalls started out as common soldiers or low ranking officers.

It's one of the reasons why he won as many battles. Looking for talent, not birth rights.

Joachim Murat started as soon of an innkeeper. Ended up as marshal, son in law of Napoleon and King of Naples.

Jean Lannes started as son of a farmer, ended as one of Napoleons most able Marshals. He was the only person to adress the Emperor with a cordial "you" and get himself seated without being told so by the emperor in public meetings, which was unheard of.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
09-04-2017, 05:46 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(08-04-2017 02:22 PM)ImFred Wrote:  
Quote:A check on the idea that the wealthy always get the advantage is that the poor will always outnumber the wealthy. If the poor are too desperate, they will rebel and overthrow government, if the poor are getting a raw deal their numbers outweigh the wealthy and hence they get to choose (by vote) the next government.

So far that has never worked.
Mao Zedong took over China based on a push for the poor against the rich.

If the poor get desperate enough, then they will risk their lives to rise against a government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 05:47 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
Yeah. That didn't work out so well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2017, 05:49 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(09-04-2017 01:48 AM)Shirina Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 01:01 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A check on the idea that the wealthy always get the advantage is that the poor will always outnumber the wealthy. If the poor are too desperate, they will rebel and overthrow government, if the poor are getting a raw deal their numbers outweigh the wealthy and hence they get to choose (by vote) the next government.

This doesn't work for a variety of reasons:

2) The poor often seem to have only a rudimentary idea of how the government even works; local and state congressional elections are simply beyond them. A great example of this is how North Carolina keeps voting in Democrat governors while voting in Republican state congressmen -- I mean, is this on purpose? I just can't fathom why it would be.

America would not be sitting here in this position now -- with the worst health care system in the industrialized world, one of the highest income gaps between rich and poor in the world, etc. -- if the poor ever acted as a check against the power-elite. Instead, we decided to vote in a president who wants to strip health care and services away from tens of millions of Americans and feed that money to the military and to tax breaks for the wealthy, one of the most brutal budgets ever proposed in modern American history.

Why would all those millions of poor voters do that to themselves?

Yeah, it just ... doesn't ... work.
USA is a unique place. A country where stupid is encouraged and actively grown. It's not unique to your poor, just look at the long list of stupid billionaires and millionaires in office over there. They deny global warming, think vaccination leads to autism, probably don't accept evolution, possibly think creationism is science.
This is religion stupid as opposed to poverty stupid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: