4 ms·

> And no revolution was ever the result of conspiracies, secret societies, or openly revolutionary parties. Preceded by: > No revolution, no matter how wide i

> And no revolution was ever the result of conspiracies, secret societies, or openly revolutionary parties. Preceded by: > No revolution, no matter how wide it opened its gates to the masses and the downtrodden—les malheureux, les misérables, les damnés de la terre, as we know them from the grand rhetoric of the French Revolution—was ever started by them. concluded with: > Revolutions always appear to succeed with amazing ease in their initial stages, and the reason is that those who supposedly “make” revolutions do not “seize power” but rather pick it up where it lies in the streets. I saw this first hand as a kid. These guys were well organized, well trained. So the question for Hannah is this: do you honestly think you can just pick up power on the street without preparations? > Wherever these disintegrative processes have been allowed to develop unchecked ... http://flashbak.com/la-porn-revolution-the-filthy-sex-propaganda-that-destroyed-marie-antoinette-38405/ http://flashbak.com/la-porn-revolution-the-filthy-sex-propag... Hannah wants us to believe that that sort of concerted, very accurately aimed, propaganda to diminish the prestige of the French royal family was not a "conspiracy".

publyjusz 9y ago
What Arendt claims is not that revolutionaries are not organized, it's that only with popular discontent they were able to succeed. This discontent is caused by structural weakness and degeneration of ancient regime, and to a large extent cannot be engineered. Which is shown by cases when either revolutionary parties or foreign governments really wanted to make a popular revolution artificially, put many resources and failed. But truth be told, there were cases when power lied on the streets and was left untaken by (often even organized) revolutionaries. The examples would be Italy and Germany after WW1, when technically socialdemocrats could assume power violently, but they chose not to for various ideological reasons. Of course, it is in interest of ancien regimes, however we define them, to make people believe that it's all secret societies. It starts at least with the royalist "theory" of French revolution caused entirely by Freemasons and such. As to your link, demonizing a queen by itself is very far from delegitimizing monarchy and autocratic government in general. It was even possible in such prototypical monarchies as Byzantine Empire. But even you seem to concede that there is no evidence for an "Antoinette porn conspiracy" and its existence is something we need to guess. I'd say "sex sells" is an easier explanation here.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  I agree. A government can't be overthrown by revolutionaries, no matter how clever and well-disciplined, unless it has already become greatly weakened through factors such as poor leadership, technological and economic changes, and religious disputes.
68c12c16 9y ago
"> http://flashbak.com/la-porn-revolution-the-filthy-sex-propaganda-that-destroyed-marie-antoinette-38405/ > Hannah wants us to believe that that sort of concerted, very > accurately aimed, propaganda to diminish the prestige of the French > royal family was not a "conspiracy". I feel the "slander conspiracy" against the Louis XVI household was only a tiny part of the entire French Revolution which started in 1789 -- if it ever was a conspiracy. All the beginning was a financial crisis faced by the French government, as a result of the enormous help they provided to the American people when they were fighting their war of independence (which could be further traced back as a revenge to the British, as they defeated the French during the Seven Years' war). And even this financial crisis was not that a decisive factor that led to the overthrown of the French monarchy. The overthrown was quite accidental, and it was the result only after the failed Estates-General convention of 1789 (which somewhat could be attributed to the arrogant attitude of the upper class representatives ) and later the failed attempt to establish a constitutional monarchy due to Louis XVI's reluctance to cooperate. It was just a series of accidents, with very little chance for all of them to be what they turned out to be...It was really a small probability event for Loius XVI to be tried and then guillotined. Further, if you read the whole paragraph, I feel what Arendt means for your quoted sentence is that the revolution, as it showed in its ostentatious appearance of violent riots, would never be possible had there been no "devolution of a regime", which was a process that happened in the everyday lives of people in that country. I think the "street" in her text means those upper middle class people in the Third Estate (i.e. a majority of whom were neither clergy nor nobleman but hommes de lettres).
- eternalban 9y ago
  Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for your thoughtful and informative comment. I think we agree to a large extent. The intent of my reference to one of the aspects of the effort to dethrone the standing societal order in France was not to imply that it was the only component of these efforts. I feel we don't have the necessary insight into the mindset of the society at that point in time. It seems perfectly unremarkable that a subset of society of that time would find the standing order, the role of the Church, and the monarchy as stumbling blocks to personal and collective ambitions. It seems equally unremarkable that the connected members of this subset would work together to do something about it! So yes, the path to the revolution may have begun as a comedy of errors, but at some point very organized and ideologically coherent forces assumed controlling interest in the unfolding of the events. It was an organized affair, without a question.

publyjusz 9y ago

What Arendt claims is not that revolutionaries are not organized, it's that only with popular discontent they were able to succeed. This discontent is caused by structural weakness and degeneration of ancient regime, and to a large extent cannot be engineered. Which is shown by cases when either revolutionary parties or foreign governments really wanted to make a popular revolution artificially, put many resources and failed. But truth be told, there were cases when power lied on the streets and was left untaken by (often even organized) revolutionaries. The examples would be Italy and Germany after WW1, when technically socialdemocrats could assume power violently, but they chose not to for various ideological reasons. Of course, it is in interest of ancien regimes, however we define them, to make people believe that it's all secret societies. It starts at least with the royalist "theory" of French revolution caused entirely by Freemasons and such. As to your link, demonizing a queen by itself is very far from delegitimizing monarchy and autocratic government in general. It was even possible in such prototypical monarchies as Byzantine Empire. But even you seem to concede that there is no evidence for an "Antoinette porn conspiracy" and its existence is something we need to guess. I'd say "sex sells" is an easier explanation here.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
woodandsteel 9y ago
I agree. A government can't be overthrown by revolutionaries, no matter how clever and well-disciplined, unless it has already become greatly weakened through factors such as poor leadership, technological and economic changes, and religious disputes.

68c12c16 9y ago

"> http://flashbak.com/la-porn-revolution-the-filthy-sex-propaganda-that-destroyed-marie-antoinette-38405/ > Hannah wants us to believe that that sort of concerted, very > accurately aimed, propaganda to diminish the prestige of the French > royal family was not a "conspiracy". I feel the "slander conspiracy" against the Louis XVI household was only a tiny part of the entire French Revolution which started in 1789 -- if it ever was a conspiracy. All the beginning was a financial crisis faced by the French government, as a result of the enormous help they provided to the American people when they were fighting their war of independence (which could be further traced back as a revenge to the British, as they defeated the French during the Seven Years' war). And even this financial crisis was not that a decisive factor that led to the overthrown of the French monarchy. The overthrown was quite accidental, and it was the result only after the failed Estates-General convention of 1789 (which somewhat could be attributed to the arrogant attitude of the upper class representatives ) and later the failed attempt to establish a constitutional monarchy due to Louis XVI's reluctance to cooperate. It was just a series of accidents, with very little chance for all of them to be what they turned out to be...It was really a small probability event for Loius XVI to be tried and then guillotined. Further, if you read the whole paragraph, I feel what Arendt means for your quoted sentence is that the revolution, as it showed in its ostentatious appearance of violent riots, would never be possible had there been no "devolution of a regime", which was a process that happened in the everyday lives of people in that country. I think the "street" in her text means those upper middle class people in the Third Estate (i.e. a majority of whom were neither clergy nor nobleman but hommes de lettres).

eternalban 9y ago
Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for your thoughtful and informative comment. I think we agree to a large extent. The intent of my reference to one of the aspects of the effort to dethrone the standing societal order in France was not to imply that it was the only component of these efforts. I feel we don't have the necessary insight into the mindset of the society at that point in time. It seems perfectly unremarkable that a subset of society of that time would find the standing order, the role of the Church, and the monarchy as stumbling blocks to personal and collective ambitions. It seems equally unremarkable that the connected members of this subset would work together to do something about it! So yes, the path to the revolution may have begun as a comedy of errors, but at some point very organized and ideologically coherent forces assumed controlling interest in the unfolding of the events. It was an organized affair, without a question.