[Politics_Observer]

@ckaihatsu

Yes, but with the French Revolution, it basically just established a dictatorship in which Europe had to unite to defeat because Napoleon was invading other countries and then at the end of the day, the same problems still remained for ordinary French citizens. In the case of the of the Russian revolution, it did not solve those problems for ordinary Russian citizens either. And they faced having to deal with a dictatorship and a police state to boot. So, the ordinary Russian, despite the Soviet revolution, lived in terrible poverty as well plus a police state led by Josef Stalin.

The far leftist revolutions did not resolve the underlying economic problems and poverty of the ordinary citizen. However, post World War II in the U.S. and in Western Europe after the Marshall Plan and in Australia saw standard of livings increase and ordinary people live much better and the rich were still rich. They didn't own 15 mansions. They might have owned two or three mansions instead. But they were still rich.

And the ordinary people lived a very nice and comfortable standard of living. All without the need of a leftist revolution. World Wars I and II helped to bring about these systemic changes that made this possible because you had more state involvement in the economies of the US, Western Europe and Australia but they were not planned economies like the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu

Yes, but with the French Revolution, it basically just established a dictatorship in which Europe had to unite to defeat because Napoleon was invading other countries and then at the end of the day, the same problems still remained for ordinary French citizens.

This is really *too simplistic* a take -- the French Revolution wasn't *anti-capitalist*, as the *Russian Revolution* was, but it *was* anti-feudal and anti-monarchical. It did away with the aristocracy *entirely*:

For four years the Directory was pulled first in one direction then in another, all the time allowing more power to accede to Napoleon, whose base in the army provided a bastion against both the royalists and any rebirth of popular Jacobinism, until in 1799 Napoleon staged a coup which in effect gave him dictatorial power. In 1804 he had the pope crown him emperor, ruling with the support both of some former Jacobins and some of the aristocrats who had returned from exile. Finally, in 1814 and 1815, defeat for his armies allowed the other European powers to reinstitute the Bourbon monarchy. Robespierre’s final, desperate warning seemed vindicated.

Yet in two respects he was wrong. The revolution was over after Thermidor 1794, but many of the changes it had brought remained. Napoleon’s regime was built on consolidation of many of these changes: the ending of feudal dues; the creation of an independent peasantry; the ending of internal customs posts; the creation of a uniform national administration; above all, the determination of government policy in the light of bourgeois goals rather than dynastic or aristocratic ones. Napoleon’s army could conquer much of Europe for a period precisely because it was not the army of the old regime. It was an army organised and motivated in ways established during the revolution, particularly its Jacobin phase. Its best generals were men who had risen through the ranks on merit in the revolutionary period—Napoleon even relied on a former Jacobin ‘terrorist’ to run his police.

Like the Dutch, English and American revolutions before it, the French Revolution had cut away the great obstacles inherited from the past to a fully market based society. And after the events of 1792-94 there was now no way aristocratic reaction could reimpose them. Looking back on the revolution 20 years later, the novelist Stendhal observed, ‘In 2,000 years of world history, so sharp a revolution in customs, ideas, and beliefs has perhaps never happened before’.46 The revolutionaries may have been defeated, but much of the revolution’s heritage survived to shape the modern world.

Robespierre was wrong in a second way as well. That was because the revolution did not just consist of the rise of middle class political groups, each one more radical than the one before. Centrally, it also involved the entry into political life of millions of people in the town and country who had never before had a chance to shape history. They had learned to fight for their own interests and to argue with each other over what those interests were. The peasants who had burned down the chateaux of the aristocrats in 1789 and 1792 were not going to let a subsequent government take their land from them. In Paris and other cities the lower classes had risen to fight for their own interests on a scale never before seen in history—and would do so again in 1830, 1848 and 1871, as well as in 1936 and 1968.

Accounts of the revolution which look, quite rightly, at its overall impact on world history are always in danger of understating what happened on the ground, in the narrow streets and overcrowded dwellings of the poorer parts of Paris. It was here that people read and argued over the writings of Marat and Hébert, spent hour after hour at their section ‘meeting in permanence’, hunted out hoarders of grain and searched for monarchist agents, sharpened pikes and marched on the Bastille, organised the risings that replaced the constitutional monarchists by the Girondins and the Girondins by the Jacobins, and volunteered in their thousands to go to the front or to spread the revolution through the countryside.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 300-301

---

In the case of the of the Russian revolution, it did not solve those problems for ordinary Russian citizens either. And they faced having to deal with a dictatorship and a police state to boot. So, the ordinary Russian, despite the Soviet revolution, lived in terrible poverty as well plus a police state led by Josef Stalin.

Yes, the initial Bolshevik Revolution devolved into *Stalinism*, but whose fault was *that* -- ?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-r ... ary#Russia

The far leftist revolutions did not resolve the underlying economic problems and poverty of the ordinary citizen.

Anti-capitalist revolutions have not been allowed to *exist* by the Western imperialist countries ('Allies'), so the blame certainly isn't on the anti-capitalist revolution or the ideology *itself*.

However, post World War II in the U.S. and in Western Europe after the Marshall Plan and in Australia saw standard of livings increase and ordinary people live much better and the rich were still rich. They didn't own 15 mansions. They might have owned two or three mansions instead. But they were still rich.

So that's socialism-for-the-rich / subsidies-for-the-rich, or at least subsidies to *Allies* countries, the international 'in-group'.

And the ordinary people lived a very nice and comfortable standard of living. All without the need of a leftist revolution.

And the Allies *continued* their regime of imperialism and *white supremacy*, to put it simply.

World Wars I and II helped to bring about these systemic changes that made this possible because you had more state involvement in the economies of the US, Western Europe and Australia but they were not planned economies like the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

The West has never been *anti-imperialist* -- the West has been the *perpetrators* of imperialism, both colonially and financially, against the countries of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and their people.

[late]

Regrettably, this will devolve onto Republicans in Congress.

If they don't want a dictator, they will have to exert their power.

[ckaihatsu]

Regrettably, this will devolve onto Republicans in Congress.

If they don't want a dictator, they will have to exert their power.

Aren't you against police brutality, late?

I imagined you *would* be.

[Politics_Observer]

@ckaihatsu

But the ultimate intent of the French Revolution as was the ultimate intent of the Russian Revolution was to improve the lives of ordinary citizens and both revolutions failed to accomplish those goals.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu

But the ultimate intent of the French Revolution as was the ultimate intent of the Russian Revolution was to improve the lives of ordinary citizens and both revolutions failed to accomplish those goals.

No, you're *oversimplifying* again and giving a *saccharin* treatment of both.

See my previous post.

[Politics_Observer]

@ckaihatsu

I don't want to get into a long drawn out back and forth with you but why have a revolution if it ultimately doesn't improve the lives of ordinary people? And I think you shouldn't over complicate exactly what people want or the ultimate intent of the Russian and French Revolutions were intended to do. Ultimately, what people want is an improvement in their lives, a piece of the pie, happiness, meaning and purpose.

If a revolution doesn't accomplish that, then it's a failed revolution. Most revolutions whose goal was supposed to be to improve the lives of ordinary people have failed. Hence, whey, we shouldn't go too far left. The goal is not to make the lives of ordinary people more miserable or to replace the current elite with a new elite. Remember, the goal is to improve the lives of ordinary people and citizens. Wouldn't you agree?

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu

I don't want to get into a long drawn out back and forth with you but why have a revolution if it ultimately doesn't improve the lives of ordinary people?

Where did you get this idea from?

I think you're referring to the Stalinist USSR prioritizing *industrialization*, over the production of consumer goods, since it was playing catch-up in that regard with the West. The Bolshevik Revolution was *invaded* by Western militaries and it fought off a counterevolution from within. Its economy was in *shambles* as a result.

And I think you shouldn't over complicate exactly what people want or the ultimate intent of the Russian and French Revolutions were intended to do. Ultimately, what people want is an improvement in their lives, a piece of the pie, happiness, meaning and purpose.

If this is to be the political *priority* then why aren't you telling the militarized nations of the world to *stop destroying* other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria? (And, previously, the Bolshevik Revolution and other leftist governments in power like Allende, Mossadegh, etc.)

If a revolution doesn't accomplish that, then it's a failed revolution.

And, by extension, would you say that someone who's had their door kicked in by U.S. soldiers, their house turned upside-down, their property destroyed, their country's artifacts stolen, their treasury looted, is a 'failed person'?

You're the type who doesn't mind *blaming the victim*, just so that you can present an *oversimplified* version of historical events. Are people who die from COVID-19 also 'failed persons' -- ?

Most revolutions whose goal was supposed to be to improve the lives of ordinary people have failed. Hence, whey, we shouldn't go too far left. The goal is not to make the lives of ordinary people more miserable or to replace the current elite with a new elite. Remember, the goal is to improve the lives of ordinary people and citizens. Wouldn't you agree?

Why didn't the Western nations *help* Russia (and other countries) to *industrialize*, the way the West helped certain European countries with the Marshall Plan?

Why doesn't the U.S. extend reparations and reconstruction to *Iraq*?

[Oxymoron]

What one tribe calls 'civil war' and the other calls 'revolution' seems oft discussed in the United States these days. Westerners, and particularly Americans, seem much more prone to posturing than to acting. There is an undeniable laziness to the masculinity of American reactionaries. Though they might like to imagine themselves warriors, they still want their 60 inch TV and their 7-11 big gulp. They are by no means a reliable militant force to be called upon. Of course, this is mirrored in American progressives as well, many of whom cannot and will not even use a gun. Lets say, hypothetically, that November rolls around. Joe Biden is elected president by as slim a margin as you might imagine. Donald Trump officially declares the election result invalid. Protests erupt on a scale larger than anything already seen. The military is sent in on behalf of the president, who utilises a kind of half-hearted martial law to remain in power.

January 20. No sign of Joe Biden. An effective military stewardship descends upon the United States, supported by approximately forty percent of the American populous, including a vast majority of the military. An active resistance of approximately one quarter of America intensifies guerrilla operations and occupation of urban areas, because street fighting won't cut it anymore. The reactionaries aren't strong, but they don't need to be. They have the flag and the army to hide behind. The progressives, on the other hand... how will they ever launch a revolution, in their current state? The dominant ideology among them is anarchism, which is too decentralised and disorganised to actively overthrow anything. How can it become a civil war, with no outright battles? It seems to me that tensions can only continue to escalate ad infinitum, until America Balkanises itself in some extremely messy way. Thoughts?

Most Military Veterans are your so called lazy reactionaries, not to mention that conservatives are armed to the teeth. The liberals better pray a civil war does not start.

[Politics_Observer]

@Oxymoron

What exactly is a "lazy reactionary?"

[ckaihatsu]

Its role in the rapid recovery has been debated. The Marshall Plan's accounting reflects that aid accounted for about 3% of the combined national income of the recipient countries between 1948 and 1951,[8] which means an increase in GDP growth of less than half a percent.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

[Oxymoron]

@Oxymoron

What exactly is a "lazy reactionary?"

this was in the OP

undeniable laziness to the masculinity of American reactionaries

[Politics_Observer]

@Oxymoron

Masculinity and laziness do not go together. To be masculine you must have an excellent work ethic and be a good provider. Laziness is not compatible with any sort of masculinity, American or otherwise.

[late]

Aren't you against police brutality, late?

I imagined you *would* be.

Wtf are you talking about.

[ckaihatsu]

Regrettably, this will devolve onto Republicans in Congress.

If they don't want a dictator, they will have to exert their power.

Aren't you against police brutality, late?

I imagined you *would* be.

Wtf are you talking about.

Why would you *let* 'this' -- whatever 'this' is -- *devolve* onto Republicans in Congress?

You're sounding very *passive*, and I thought perhaps the issue you were referring to was the current civil-society physical conflicts and violence over the killer-cops / policing issue, which I figured you'd be anti-police-brutality about.

Maybe you could *clarify*, since your meaning of 'this' is ambiguous.

[late]

There are few paths that don't involve violence. One of them is Republicans doing a quickie impeachment, as unlikely as that sounds.

Trump has a paramilitary force now, who would oppose them? The military won't. You expecting the DC police to try and remove him by force?

This will get weird fast. Dems are already working on arguments to present to the courts. But Trump hasn't shown much respect for law, so that's a slim hope.

[Oxymoron]

@Oxymoron

Masculinity and laziness do not go together. To be masculine you must have an excellent work ethic and be a good provider. Laziness is not compatible with any sort of masculinity, American or otherwise.

Yes and your point being?

[Politics_Observer]

@Oxymoron

That WAS the point, dumbass. Get your head out of your ass.

[Oxymoron]

@Oxymoron

That WAS the point, dumbass. Get your head out of your ass.

I think you need to lower the steroid ration buddy.

[Politics_Observer]

@Oxymoron

Well don't be rude and I'll be nice.