3 ms·

Can you really imagine a 18th century France style revolution in the west today? Try! I can't. Why is that? People haven't changed in 200 years yet it's complet

by Paul_S 11y ago

Can you really imagine a 18th century France style revolution in the west today? Try! I can't. Why is that? People haven't changed in 200 years yet it's completely unimaginable.

tmorton 11y ago
I think restricting this to "the west" begs the question. We conventionally define "the west" to be the relatively stable, relatively democratic countries of the US and Western Europe. We exclude various countries simply because they haven't been stable. But even in "the west", you don't need to go back very far to find revolutions driven (in part) by economic issues. Hitler couldn't have seized power without Germany's rough experiences in the great depression.
jerf 11y ago
I'd say it's a combination of A: a long period of relative stability and B: in the west, everyone is freakishly wealthy by historical standards and has a lot to lose, thus, you lack a base of desperate people with nothing to lose. (Chatter about "wealth inequality" in the West can sometimes cover over the fact that by historical standards, we have basically cured poverty as much as we can, modulo some fiddling around the edges of incarceration vs. institutionalization vs. homelessness at the fringes. Doesn't mean it's not bad or not a problem, but it does pay to contextualize it historically every so often, to stay grounded.) On the other hand, it does mean that if there any sort of instability, people will have to rediscover from scratch how to deal with it, a process that sounds relatively painful to me. Here's hoping we never really have to find out.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  >everyone is freakishly wealthy by historical standards and has a lot to lose You raise a really good point here, and I think this is one of the most important stabilizing factors in today's society.
netcan 11y ago
Yes, I can imagine it. I think revolution is more imaginable than war and even though we've made a lot of progress on war, it's not unimaginable. I'm not a Marxists and I don't think these things are deterministic, but I do think certain societal conditions make revolutions more likely. If you look around the world today, most "wars" are civil conflicts or centre around civil conflicts or something in that neighborhood. Ukraine, Syria, Israel, Korea, Taiwan… The line between civil conflict and revolution is pretty blurry. The dominant revolutionary paradigms are religious, national and economic-ideological. The last one's big examples are the US-French revolutions and their communist descendants. It's not as much of a big paradigm now. I think the intellectual zeitgeist has moved passed it. New paradigms emerge though and old ones like religion and nationalism have a long half life. To go back to the quasi-marxist point… I think economic inequality plays a role. If enough people have little enough of the income generating power, whether that's capital or labour (or land and privilege or whatever the system), they have no interest in maintaining the status quo. I think capitalism's "raises all boats" promise is a key promise. If it holds no power, I think revolution becomes a greater possibility.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Revolutions require a fairly equal amount of weapons. That doesn't exist today because it's not needed. Instead we have election and they take care of the anger. At the end of the day if enough people care for it. Sanders or someone like him will get elected. But there aren't enough yet to make revolutions in any way we normally think about it.
  - netcan 11y ago
    I don't think this is true. Revolutions come in all sorts of flavors, but some of them involve some point where armed forces are required to choose between shooting on citizens or not. Most of the eastern block revolutions 25 years agos were peaceful. None had dissident firepower playing a significant role. When East German security forces decided not to fire on the wall crossers, it was 50% over. When Moscow decided not to send in tanks it got to 100%. Not many revolutions are armed insurrection like you see in Syria.
pjc50 11y ago
There aren't too many absolute monarchies with starving peasants in the west today. However, it's easy to imagine domino instability at the edges of the "west". For example, if an agreement hadn't been reached on Greece. Or Catalan secession turning violent. Or something triggered by the millions of Syrian refugees.
ionised 11y ago
I think that kind of scenario is inevitable if we carry on the way we are.
snowwrestler 11y ago
The West has invented political/cultural systems that permit revolutions without violence. The transition that is happening in Canada now is a good example, as were the 2008 and 2010 elections in the U.S. Basically, most people in rich Western countries today have a lot more to lose from violence than they do from policy disagreements. And most citizens essentially believe in the power of the political system, because they can remember popular political uprisings that had tangible impacts: the labor movement, the environmental movement, LGBT rights, etc. If you look at the most desperate movement in the U.S. today, it has to be Black Lives Matter. Even those organizers reject violence as a means to their ends.
nemo44x 11y ago
Not an 18th century French style revolution but similar results I can easily imagine. What you'll end up with is a state which becomes more and more Socialist. This is a prediction Marx made about Capitalism. It will eventually result in many more have-nots than haves and the have-nots will either through violent revolution or political policy enact Socialism. It is not an outcome we want but it is up to the capital class to ensure this doesn't happen by regulating themselves well enough so everyone feels they are getting a fair piece of the pie. My point is, there is a balance somewhere between chaotic growth at any cost with its wealth generation and ensuring people can participate fairly and share the results and have equity in the future.

by Paul_S 11y ago

Can you really imagine a 18th century France style revolution in the west today? Try! I can't. Why is that? People haven't changed in 200 years yet it's completely unimaginable.

tmorton 11y ago

I think restricting this to "the west" begs the question. We conventionally define "the west" to be the relatively stable, relatively democratic countries of the US and Western Europe. We exclude various countries simply because they haven't been stable. But even in "the west", you don't need to go back very far to find revolutions driven (in part) by economic issues. Hitler couldn't have seized power without Germany's rough experiences in the great depression.

jerf 11y ago

I'd say it's a combination of A: a long period of relative stability and B: in the west, everyone is freakishly wealthy by historical standards and has a lot to lose, thus, you lack a base of desperate people with nothing to lose. (Chatter about "wealth inequality" in the West can sometimes cover over the fact that by historical standards, we have basically cured poverty as much as we can, modulo some fiddling around the edges of incarceration vs. institutionalization vs. homelessness at the fringes. Doesn't mean it's not bad or not a problem, but it does pay to contextualize it historically every so often, to stay grounded.) On the other hand, it does mean that if there any sort of instability, people will have to rediscover from scratch how to deal with it, a process that sounds relatively painful to me. Here's hoping we never really have to find out.

mfoy_ 11y ago
>everyone is freakishly wealthy by historical standards and has a lot to lose You raise a really good point here, and I think this is one of the most important stabilizing factors in today's society.

netcan 11y ago

Yes, I can imagine it. I think revolution is more imaginable than war and even though we've made a lot of progress on war, it's not unimaginable. I'm not a Marxists and I don't think these things are deterministic, but I do think certain societal conditions make revolutions more likely. If you look around the world today, most "wars" are civil conflicts or centre around civil conflicts or something in that neighborhood. Ukraine, Syria, Israel, Korea, Taiwan… The line between civil conflict and revolution is pretty blurry. The dominant revolutionary paradigms are religious, national and economic-ideological. The last one's big examples are the US-French revolutions and their communist descendants. It's not as much of a big paradigm now. I think the intellectual zeitgeist has moved passed it. New paradigms emerge though and old ones like religion and nationalism have a long half life. To go back to the quasi-marxist point… I think economic inequality plays a role. If enough people have little enough of the income generating power, whether that's capital or labour (or land and privilege or whatever the system), they have no interest in maintaining the status quo. I think capitalism's "raises all boats" promise is a key promise. If it holds no power, I think revolution becomes a greater possibility.

ThomPete 11y ago
Revolutions require a fairly equal amount of weapons. That doesn't exist today because it's not needed. Instead we have election and they take care of the anger. At the end of the day if enough people care for it. Sanders or someone like him will get elected. But there aren't enough yet to make revolutions in any way we normally think about it.
- netcan 11y ago
  I don't think this is true. Revolutions come in all sorts of flavors, but some of them involve some point where armed forces are required to choose between shooting on citizens or not. Most of the eastern block revolutions 25 years agos were peaceful. None had dissident firepower playing a significant role. When East German security forces decided not to fire on the wall crossers, it was 50% over. When Moscow decided not to send in tanks it got to 100%. Not many revolutions are armed insurrection like you see in Syria.

pjc50 11y ago

There aren't too many absolute monarchies with starving peasants in the west today. However, it's easy to imagine domino instability at the edges of the "west". For example, if an agreement hadn't been reached on Greece. Or Catalan secession turning violent. Or something triggered by the millions of Syrian refugees.

ionised 11y ago

I think that kind of scenario is inevitable if we carry on the way we are.

snowwrestler 11y ago

The West has invented political/cultural systems that permit revolutions without violence. The transition that is happening in Canada now is a good example, as were the 2008 and 2010 elections in the U.S. Basically, most people in rich Western countries today have a lot more to lose from violence than they do from policy disagreements. And most citizens essentially believe in the power of the political system, because they can remember popular political uprisings that had tangible impacts: the labor movement, the environmental movement, LGBT rights, etc. If you look at the most desperate movement in the U.S. today, it has to be Black Lives Matter. Even those organizers reject violence as a means to their ends.

nemo44x 11y ago

Not an 18th century French style revolution but similar results I can easily imagine. What you'll end up with is a state which becomes more and more Socialist. This is a prediction Marx made about Capitalism. It will eventually result in many more have-nots than haves and the have-nots will either through violent revolution or political policy enact Socialism. It is not an outcome we want but it is up to the capital class to ensure this doesn't happen by regulating themselves well enough so everyone feels they are getting a fair piece of the pie. My point is, there is a balance somewhere between chaotic growth at any cost with its wealth generation and ensuring people can participate fairly and share the results and have equity in the future.