Comment by mpyne
13 years ago
Wasn't that the one that introduced Robespierre and the Reign of Terror, and then later another despot? Sure, Napoleon was talented and introduced the civil code, but it was still another example of the guy with the biggest stick making the rules.
They were uneducated people who went through a system that only valued rich and well connected people. What did you expect?
Take lessons from the past, and APPLY them to your context.
I'm not saying that rioting and killing Obama is the solution. I'm saying that using the government's tools (petitioning) against them is ridiculous. You have to show people you're angry, you have to show your entire country you're angry and you want things to change, laws to change, the system to change. You have to take a real stand.
EDIT : As I mentioned in some other comment. The revolution brought us Democracy, which later spread across all Europe, and brought us the beautiful Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which is used everywhere in the world as standards (not always respected though). I believe the revolution was the most beautiful part of France history. Napoleon was our anger which was still resonating years after the Monarchy. We're calm people now.
You can take a stand without violence.
You can take a stand without destruction.
Hell, ask Snowden if he would rather have organized online action to protest, or people in the street beating other people...
In the short term, maybe. But in the long term, it was a catalyst that forced reforms (and further upheavals) across the whole continent; it was a large stick to carry at each negotiating table for freedoms, human rights and so on.
In the same way, the Russian Revolution eventually generated Stalinism and brought suffering to the Soviet block, but it was a tremendous inspiration (and often brought material help) to workers' rights movements in many other countries, de facto creating the "social Europe" we currently enjoy (or used to).
EDIT: it's also funny to see these comments on American websites. Hello, your country was built by an armed revolution that was as nationalistic in practice as it was universalistic in inspiration. As certain modern philosophers from the Five Boroughs used to say, "you gotta fight for your right to party" :)
I'd recommend reading Fatal Purity if you want to understand just how evil the French Revolution really was - even the architects became its victims in huge numbers. The terror is not something I would wish on any country, and it is no way comparable to the American revolution in scope or brutality, that and the Russian revolution are fascinating periods but great examples of why revolution often ends in disaster for the countries involved, and frequently ends in dictatorship.
The Russian revolution started relatively peacefully, moved on to a brutal civil war, and then to draconian dictatorship (under Lenin) in just a few short years, then in 21 the resulting wars and disastrous economic policy caused a famine that killed 6 million people before NEP was introduced. And that was well before Stalin began to terrorise the country. Again, I think you're romanticising events which were nasty, brutish, and mostly harmful in their effects.
I'd argue European socialism (the social Europe we currently enjoy) evolved more from the evolution of liberal democracy and liberal capitalism in a peaceful society than from Marxism - many of the things Marx & Engels criticised have been peacefully removed (child labour, alienation of workers from means of production, lack of unions etc). Granted the UK and other European nations have other problems, but let's not forget how far we came peacefully, and how much of a set back to civilisation war and revolution really are.
European socialism owes more to the threat of Stalinism than we like to admit; western governments were forced into improving conditions for their working classes mostly by the threat of civil unrest, while leftist parties and unions benefited enormously from their soviet connections - both in motivational and economic terms. As soon as the USSR disappeared, now-unchecked European elites promptly started renegotiating workers rights, pushing salaries down in real terms pretty much across the whole of Europe; public services were dismantled and sold off, and welfare benefits were slashed. Leftist parties have lost most of their economic independence and are now captive to established interests, so their policies are all over the place. Of course there are other elements influencing this state of things, but the post-89 trend is quite clear and has a lot to do with the disappearance of an armed contingent of "reds" on the horizon, like it happened with the Space Race.
I know my history well enough, I'm not denying that revolts often (but not always) result in weak political structures which are prone to collapse in the short term; you only need to look at the current wave of Middle-Eastern "springs" for confirmation - from Tunisia to Egypt, in practical terms they're now worse-off than under their dictators. Still, they play a often necessary role in putting the fear of consequences in the heart of established elites who would otherwise refuse to change; places like Saudi Arabia are now grudgingly considering improving conditions of their women, for example.
2 replies →
Thanks for the info.
You might want to also check out The Anatomy of Revolution - it details the broad life cycles revolutions succeed through. It concludes that revolutions are overall detrimental to lasting change in a society. The American Revolution is discussed in order to explain why it turned out atypically.
1 reply →