Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should there be a revolution of this type in the US?

Yes.
14
33%
No.
25
60%
Other.
3
7%
#13904998
The French Revolution was lunacy. It didn't just target the aristocracy, but also targeted random passersby with summary executions during the Reign of Terror.

A similar uprising in today's age would accomplish nothing but anarchy, but the real problem today seems to be bullying leaking over into real life, the workforce, and courts:

http://diversityinc.com/investigative-s ... -politics/

People are becoming increasingly tolerant of violence and harassment when it comes to people they just don't like. They hunt for scapegoats to unleash their frustration and sadism against whether those scapegoats are the cause of the problem or not.

Economically speaking, this has ramifications too. The more normal people try to be to avoid scapegoat labels, the less creative they are. The less creative, the less problem solving. It also destroys contracts and property rights because people don't know if their agreements can be reliably upheld...

...so you end up with a "push comes to shove" economy where nothing happens. Rather than invest themselves, people speculate socially for other people to jump on top of, and you end up with an addiction to fighting where people even enjoy the drama and excitement of things falling apart.
#13905011
Sephardi wrote:What I mean is a middle class revolution and hanging of bankers/politicians/church officials. The revolution, as mentioned before, would be led by the petite bourgeoisie. I vote yes.


You are making a mistake there. The French Revolution was a liberal revolution (or a bourgeois revolution, or an atlantic revolution, depending on the author). It was by no means a revolution that took power away from the bourgeoisie (which bankers and politicians are part of). It was precisely the revolution that put them in charge, and destroyed the privileges of the previous aristocratic/noble elite.

And even then, France went through 10 whole years of instability (something that is quite common when you have a revolution - any revolution). When the instability phase passed, France was a constitutional monarchy, led by a liberal Emperor – who was, himself, part of the bourgeoisie: the Almanach de Gotha refused to add Napoleon or his family as nobles, for example – and a liberal elite.

Democracy, in every country, came with the liberal revolutions. Just like capitalism and the free market, nuclear families etc. Even industrialization, to an extent, was a product of the liberal revolutions. So, the US, just like every other capitalist country, did have a revolution like the French one. It is even referred to as the American Revolution. The only difference is that, in the Americas, liberal revolutions came together with the fight for independence.

A revolution to take down the bourgeoisie, the politicians, the bankers, the rich entrepreneurs/CEOs etc would be a socialist revolution, not a liberal one, like the French revolution was... And no, socialism should be completely destroyed, so my vote was definitely a no... :p
#13905018
Smertios wrote:The French Revolution was a liberal revolution (or a bourgeois revolution, or an atlantic revolution, depending on the author). It was by no means a revolution that took power away from the bourgeoisie (which bankers and politicians are part of). It was precisely the revolution that put them in charge, and destroyed the privileges of the previous aristocratic/noble elite.

Yes, basically this. Miles of it.

There's a whole audio lecture about how bankers got control of all sorts of new privileges and ran huge scams during that revolution. I'll have to try and see if I can remember who it was by, since it was pretty funny in a sort of graveyard humour way.
#13905078
Daktoria wrote:The French Revolution was lunacy. It didn't just target the aristocracy, but also targeted random passersby with summary executions during the Reign of Terror.


I don't expect the American revolution they modelled it on was much different, do you?

That's what happens in revolutions.
#13905138
The French revolution didn't bring democracy. It have replaced a soft and kind monarchy of the liberal and ethic person: Loui the 16th, by a harsh dictatorship, that would last for perhaps 100 years!

Britain however, have never been threw any revolution, yet stepped for a democracy- slowly but certain.

Nor the French revolution exported any of its ideas. Its the americans, that had to force a democracy twice on Europe, to bring democracy to Europe. 130-170 years after the French revolution...

- In america I think that the public do have a say, and you can roll up things, or starts movements to break 'monarchies' .. But the French revolution is not the style to do a thing. Revolutions fails. Its a formula:

Too soft regime (Louie 16 / Wiemar (Germany) ) -> anarchism --> The harshest dictatorship
#13905191
LehmanB wrote:The French revolution didn't bring democracy. It have replaced a soft and kind monarchy of the liberal and ethic person: Loui the 16th, by a harsh dictatorship, that would last for perhaps 100 years!

Britain however, have never been threw any revolution, yet stepped for a democracy- slowly but certain.

Nor the French revolution exported any of its ideas. Its the americans, that had to force a democracy twice on Europe, to bring democracy to Europe. 130-170 years after the French revolution...

- In america I think that the public do have a say, and you can roll up things, or starts movements to break 'monarchies' .. But the French revolution is not the style to do a thing. Revolutions fails. Its a formula:

Too soft regime (Louie 16 / Wiemar (Germany) ) -> anarchism --> The harshest dictatorship


Hmm, I believe you have misunderstood a lot. Most of what you wrote there isn't very factual. First, because France did indeed become a democracy once the revolution ended. The Napoleonic Constitutions all granted that the legislative would be elected. Granted, it was by an electoral college, not the whole population, but that was still considered democratic (and it was the situation pretty much in the entire world).

Second, because Britain did go through a liberal revolution, just like France did. It was less bloody, certainly, and it was called the Glorious Revolution, but it was there, long before the French even dreamt of becoming a liberal nation.

Democracy, while enforced by the revolution, was not one of the main ideals of it. The revolution was about spreading equality, liberty and fraternity. Democracy would be secondary to those three, but France did indeed fight for democracy. But I agree that democracy, as the main ideal, was spread by the Americans a long time after that. But many countries were already democratic: Britain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain... And France.
#13905211
Neither the civil war, nor the Glorious Revolution, brought a democracy to Britain.

Am I mistaking to claim that they made minor changes to the type of regieme, and with less blood? That way of Britain- slow crawling changes.. This is not the style of the French revolution.. of anarchism, total change of regimes...

The ideas of democracy already published, and spreaded, during the tolerant period of Louis's monarchy. That allowed the later change. During the 19th century Europe was not democrat, yet liberal and democratic, or national new ideas spread there.. So I link the democratic ideas as part of general spread of ideas.. So I don't give to France the credit.

France indeed become democratic eventually, and Napoleon, or even other strong dictators, did organize the modern form of democratic states we know. But, I somehow think that it was not necessary to go through that revolution - that if the people were free of mind before the revolution, it could crawl and perhaps reach the same goal within 100 years, but without the blood... the way Britain did it. I'm not saying clean it from any conflict, but don't break the system totally as the French did..
Last edited by LehmanB on 25 Feb 2012 18:58, edited 1 time in total.
#13905214
stalker wrote:No.

I despise the bourgeoisie as a class, whereas banksters are mostly fine.

That's quite silly of you, given that financial elites are far more destructive to common people than the bourgeoisie. Banksters are not beholden to one country, to the productive capacity within said country, nor produce much semi-skilled labor -- thus a country where industrial elites are replaced with financial elites eats up its middle class. America's long-term economic decline is testament to this.
#13905217
LehmanB wrote:Neither the civil war, nor the Glorious Revolution, brought a democracy to Britain.

The Civil War led to further limitation of the power of the Monarch (eventually, after Cromwell's reign of terror). That is a better result than a so-called "democracy", which, as America has shown, is no guarantee of freedom whatsoever. All of the civil freedoms Americans take for granted come from limiting government power, and have nothing to do with majority rule.
#13905228
Alexander wrote:The Civil War led to further limitation of the power of the Monarch

My argument is: a total revolution or a softer conflict which create minor changes- which is a better way to step for the goal?
That is a better result than a so-called "democracy", which, as America has shown, is no guarantee of freedom whatsoever. All of the civil freedoms Americans take for granted come from limiting government power, and have nothing to do with majority rule.

Democracy is not anarchism. It also forbiddens freedom. Nevertheless, there you can acheive the most, with a sustainable system.
The American society has much freedom, and the regime there is more restricted than the Russian for instance. Thats important.
#13905246
LehmanB wrote:Neither the civil war, nor the Glorious Revolution, brought a democracy to Britain.


The power passed from the King to the Parliament after the revolution. How exactly was Britain not a democracy after the Glorious Revolution?

Am I mistaking to claim that they made minor changes to the type of regieme, and with less blood? That way of Britain- slow crawling changes.. This is not the style of the French revolution.. of anarchism, total change of regimes...


Yes, since the changes weren't minor at all. The social-political order was changed drastically.
#13905252
No.

The looming scourge of Jacobinism must be culled. Ergo, we must Occupy San Francisco and Occupy Woodstock with the full force of our military. For the 1%! Death to hippies! And mark my words, anyone who supports this is a hippie, even if they prance around in an SS uniform. Especially then.

In all seriousness though, it'd run counter to all that America stands for and any general semblance of sanity. To illustrate, the French celebrate Bastille Day, where a bunch of nutcases stormed a building just because. Americans celebrate Independence Day, wherein a coherent and reasoned argument was laid out. Our Bastille-esque event, the Boston Tea Party, was actually held with disdain by most Founders (including Samuel Adams' own cousin John) as it was an insane and reckless example of mob revolt that hurt the chances for peaceful resolution with the British.

Such an event would also shut down the industries that are creating jobs, breeding another recession and putting many out of work. Effete upper-middle-class armchair revolutionaries, why do you hate poor people?

So yes, let's not bring back the days of the guillotine, replacing churches with grand temples of unreasonable reason, and changing the calendar to suit Mr. Robespierre's OCD.
Last edited by Harold Saxon on 25 Feb 2012 19:41, edited 1 time in total.
#13905255
Smertios wrote:How exactly was Britain not a democracy after the Glorious Revolution?

The monarchy still had a say...
They gave some influence to the parlament..

Yes, since the changes weren't minor at all. The social-political order was changed drastically.

It was a dramatic change, yet it didn't break the monarchy. So this is rather much different than the French revolution, which rather suggests a total change.
#13905294
I think Shepardi was trying to tease out whether or not there was some appetite for a revolution, rather than offering a model or methodology.

There are things that could be done that would shake the moneymen to the core, but there would e some pretty far-reaching implications. Still, its leverage.
#13905329
Alexander wrote:Do you actually know what the Glorious Revolution was? :eh:

I'm not sure he does. Let's give him a hint: it's about a William and a Mary, and not a university in Virginia.

Admittedly, the shift in houses marked a transition to a more Parliament-centered rule to be sure, but Great Britain in no sense became a democracy.

Luckily I, a Trump supporter, can read the real in[…]

God.

and wait. You think that the universe is expanding[…]

If you chose get onto an Internet forum and whine[…]

Syrian war thread

LoL. 2 points. First, you do realize that all ma[…]