The Chat Thread (Read OP)

[Niles Crane]

Why do you put yourself above manual and physical labour?

Manual labour is for poors. It's why my hands are so white and soft like cashmere.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I see the French Revolution in stages: so moderate it hurts, so radical it kills, so ineffective it gets usurped (multiple times). At the end of the day really all I'm getting are some people's ideas, mass mobilization, the killing of a king and civilians learning to take matters into their own hands. Take from that what you will but it was no where near as useful to the populace as say the American Revolution (which relatively did not go around killing off the populace and actually had a lasting impact as an administration).

[Diamat]

That's a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it, seeing as there were so many different ideas being articulated and supported during those years by many different groups. If you're talking only about the Jacobin Terror then yes, that could be considered an atrocity committed in a time of general fear and paranoia about the survival of the nation, but there were many stages to Revolutionary France, which happened differently in each part of France and its colonies, and each stratus of French society.

You are right, and it was indeed a simplification. However, what you are saying is precisely my point: freedom was not institutionalized, leaving open the possibility of terror. An institutionalized public morality, i.e., ethics, were lacking, and people had their own little "believies," raised to a pretentious universality (and hence atomistic, individualistic struggles). Nevertheless, the French Revolution fulfilled an important role in European and World History, eventually leading to a more complete freedom. The actual process of revolution, however, had little to do with freedom. Freedom, as it exists in a revolution, is an illusion.

[Inkie]

@Oda Yeah, a bit harder to pull off with a population ten-times the size of America's, deeply divided by entrenched class-lines, with many of its people mired in poverty/desperation while others were immeasureably wealthy, and bordered/surrounded by hostile powers, among other things.

The whole 'civilians taking matters into their own hands' was actually something really quite unique at the time and which went a step further than the American Revolution. I mean even in the army at one point you had committees forming and a somewhat political enfranchisement of the common soldiery against the officers and other authorities, which was all but shite for military effectiveness and effectively quelled by the Jacobins, but all the same was one of the most noteworthy expressions of popular empowerment in the West's first wave of revolutions.

Not that I'm saying the French Revolution was 'better' than its peers at all.


Oh and also saw Fury Road yesterday. Pretty great

[Inkie]

You are right, and it was indeed a simplification. However, what you are saying is precisely my point: freedom was not institutionalized, leaving open the possibility of terror. An institutionalized public morality, i.e., ethics, were lacking, and people had their own little "believies," raised to a pretentious universality (and hence atomistic, individualistic struggles). Nevertheless, the French Revolution fulfilled an important role in European and World History, eventually leading to a more complete freedom. The actual process of revolution, however, had little to do with freedom. Freedom, as it exists in a revolution, is an illusion.

Wouldn't that be something hard to avoid, though? One could argue that in all of its stages, the French Revolution was an expression of the dominant public will of the time, and that it's more the continuous war against its neighbours and French people hostile to it which engendered its consuming of itself. Had, for example, France not got itself dragged into continuous warfare with the old régime states, it would have been easier to avoid Terror in the move towards consolidating the transformations of the Revolution in a way that was acceptable to the largest number of French citizens.

Essentially, it's hard to find any kind of revolution in a nation/state without various ideologically divergent formulas being posited about what the new state should become. The way these are smoothed-out is the most important part of the process and its only in such a way that gains from a revolution can be institutionalized.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

My point is more that the revolution itself provided little for the basis of an administration. When it wasn't turned on its head by Napoleon it practically disappeared when France had the Bourbon restoration. I guess it just poked its head again when the Orleanists took over and it finally came back as a republic after that. I'd say the fact that France became a more or less successful republic had more to do with the general trend of successful administrations in Europe. It probably retained its identity as a republic from the revolution but I don't think the revolution had such a direct effect by then.

[Diamat]

Wouldn't that be something hard to avoid, though? One could argue that in all of its stages, the French Revolution was an expression of the dominant public will of the time, and that it's more the continuous war against its neighbours and French people hostile to it which engendered its consuming of itself. Had, for example, France not got itself dragged into continuous warfare with the old régime states, it would have been easier to avoid Terror in the move towards consolidating the transformations of the Revolution in a way that was acceptable to the largest number of French citizens.

Essentially, it's hard to find any kind of revolution in a nation/state without various ideologically divergent formulas being posited about what the new state should become. The way these are smoothed-out is the most important part of the process and its only in such a way that gains from a revolution can be institutionalized.

But this is precisely what I was saying. The revolution itself brings about negative freedom. Only in time, after the revolution is settled and a true universal will is established, can we talk of a more complete form of freedom firmly grounded necessity. For a "public will" to truly emerge, it must become concrete - it cannot be indeterminate. People must know this will to be the public will to truly be good. They must be able to act on it, and it should not suddenly emerge after the fact (after the done deed). There needs to be a social order (laws, estates, etc.) in relation to which the individual can tame and fulfill his will. Otherwise the individual is nothing more than a leaf blown around by the winds of history.

[Inkie]

My point is more that the revolution itself provided little for the basis of an administration. When it wasn't turned on its head by Napoleon it practically disappeared when France had the Bourbon restoration. I guess it just poked its head again when the Orleanists took over and it finally came back as a republic after that. I'd say the fact that France became a more or less successful republic had more to do with the general trend of successful administrations in Europe. It probably retained its identity as a republic from the revolution but I don't think the revolution had such a direct effect by then.

That's not quite correct though - Louis XVIII recognized that a restored monarchy now needed to adapt itself to meet the legal and societal changes affected by the Revolution, and so he attempted to create a balanced system which would maintain several of the positive legal and societal creations of the Republic. His rule was stymied by constant pressure from the resurgent ultra-royalists, and after his death by Charles X who subsequently attempted to ignore the administrative changes that the Revolution had brought about by restoring the older monarchy, undermining liberal trends where he could. This is why his reign failed - the Orleanist takeover was supported by people because it opposed Charles X's reactionary agenda and sought to preserve the gains acquired during the Revolution. So really, there's only continuity between the Revolution and all of the progressive movements after it, which were mostly about restoring the administrative principles of 1789+, while preserving those principles from chaos and tumult. Essentially an attempt to institutionalize them and maintain the rule of law.

Moreover, it needs to be noted that this was a period in Europe when all of the great powers were fearfully cracking down on revolutionary movements and entrenching their absolutist authorities. It can hardly be said that the Orleanists and French republicans piggybacked on other contemporary movements which also tended to base themselves on various liberalizing principles of the Revolution.

But this is precisely what I was saying. The revolution itself brings about negative freedom. Only in time, after the revolution is settled and a true universal will is established, can we talk of a more complete form of freedom firmly grounded necessity. For a "public will" to truly emerge, it must become concrete - it cannot be indeterminate. People must know this will to be the public will to truly be good. They must be able to act on it, and it should not suddenly emerge after the fact (after the done deed). There needs to be a social order (laws, estates, etc.) in relation to which the individual can tame and fulfill his will. Otherwise the individual is nothing more than a leaf blown around by the winds of history.

Absolutely, and the French Revolution itself cracked under the pressures of constant war and uncertainty, making such an outcome impossible.

[mishkin]

Oh and also saw Fury Road yesterday. Pretty great

Yeah

[lolIsuck]

SHUM. The French Revolution was hardly an exercise in freedom. It was an atrocity involving slaughter and the general absence of ethics. The French Revolution was an exercise of a very formal notion of freedom; mass violence and disorder occurred precisely because freedom was not institutionalized and organized in universal ways.

Wouldn't that be kinda contradicting? With no institutions that enforce their rules on people there is more freedom for those people to do as they want. Apart from the Terror period the revolution would probably score quite high on the amount of freedom people had. Definitely compared to other countries at that time.

Because we live in cities!

Ah yes, I forgot. There is no manual labour in cities.

[Derpy Hooves]

Inkie I would say that the Americans had similar difficulties. 13 colonies uniting an putting aside all of their differences was no easy task. While they weren't as divided by classes as the French were, they were divided by territorial allegiances and economic interests. Each colony had different interests. The fact that our first constitution outlined the importance of the individual states is a testament to how divided we are and still are. I'm not sure on the finer details of their unification efforts, but the Italian and German states didn't all join together peacefully. Some were won through diplomacy (which was how all the 13 colonies joined and fought for one state) others through war. To be fair, both had more sovereign states than 13 (actually I'm unsure of how many Italy had at the time of unification).

[Hobbes]

Why is freedom so important? It's a revolution, you're gonna have to oppress some folks. In any case, I find it absolutely insulting to dismiss the revolution as something having no impact; Rev. France was the womb of the modern world.

[Flinn]

Why is freedom so important? It's a revolution, you're gonna have to oppress some folks. In any case, I find it absolutely insulting to dismiss the revolution as something having no impact; Rev. France was the womb of the modern world.

must agree, otherwise historians wouldn't have considered the French revolution to be the starting point of the Contemporary History.

Also, one should distinguish between freedom and anarchy (I guess this is what Diamat was telling with other words); anyhow, the fact that you can do what you like does not mean that you are free, on the contrary freedom means that you can take free choices based on the understanding of the conseguences of them, or this is how I see it

edit

(actually I'm unsure of how many Italy had at the time of unification).

a pretty accurate map of the time, although there were other smaller "states" (the majority of which were in any case subject to the rule of the other big ones)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Inkie]

Inkie I would say that the Americans had similar difficulties. 13 colonies uniting an putting aside all of their differences was no easy task. While they weren't as divided by classes as the French were, they were divided by territorial allegiances and economic interests. Each colony had different interests. The fact that our first constitution outlined the importance of the individual states is a testament to how divided we are and still are. I'm not sure on the finer details of their unification efforts, but the Italian and German states didn't all join together peacefully. Some were won through diplomacy (which was how all the 13 colonies joined and fought for one state) others through war. To be fair, both had more sovereign states than 13 (actually I'm unsure of how many Italy had at the time of unification).

Yeah America had its own problems, like as you inferred the ideological divisions between the Federalists and Republicans, the separation between North and South, and the many others.

The context for those issues was very different in France though, which led its revolution on a bloodier path. You could also make the cultural argument...

[mishkin]

and Charlize Theron is so hot

[Diamat]

Wouldn't that be kinda contradicting? With no institutions that enforce their rules on people there is more freedom for those people to do as they want. Apart from the Terror period the revolution would probably score quite high on the amount of freedom people had. Definitely compared to other countries at that time.

A conception of freedom as simply being able to do as you want is abstract, negative freedom. It has no determination and lacks all concreteness. In such a condition, the will sets its own good, yet this good has no determination - i.e., I am free to do what I want, and whatever I want is good. There is no objective way to judge what is good in such a conception of freedom. It's all arbitrary. Objectivity only arises through the social, through a positive conception of freedom. My individual actions only attain rationality and objectivity once they can be accepted and recognized by other people. For this to work, you need a social fabric that extends beyond the individual: you need duty, law, education, religion, etc. Otherwise people would simply be self-righteous, arbitrary beings, unable to realize their will because their will is simply internal to itself, unable to relate to a greater social whole and thus unable to express and realize itself in relation to other human beings.

[General Maximus]

Finally, I turned 18 today! Greetings, everyone, it's been almost two extremely busy years since I could join the chat thread.

[Påsan]

Ah yes, I forgot. There is no manual labour in cities.

Lies! This is what I'm doing right now in Oslo.

But then again I'm a filthy pleb.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Finally, I turned 18 today! Greetings, everyone, it's been almost two extremely busy years since I could join the chat thread.

Congratulation Max, I hope the two year exile paid off.

[AqD]

How can you stand horizontally like that?!