 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It wasn't just an overnight thing like the French revolution, where the people overthrew the government and then placed in a system which deviated from just about every single tradition France had at the time.
|
Well if you’re going to quibble about the revolutionary act of enfranchising women being rather a gradual thing because people were campaigning for it for decades beforehand, then the French Revolution can also be seen to be a gradual thing, because the Encylopaedists, les Philosophes and French nobles had been used to discussing the existing French constitution, such as it was, for decades before the final breech with the absolutist monarchy came about.
(Rousseau's The Social Contract: publ. 1762:
"As long as a people is compelled to obey, and obeys, it does well; as soon as it can shake off the yoke, and shakes it off, it does still better; for, regaining its liberty by the same right as took it away, either it is justified in resuming it, or there was no justification for those who took it away." )
Enlightenment ideas of legal reform and universal principles of citizenship were what motivated the National Assembly, and equality before the law in fiscal and juridical obligations was a truly revolutionary notion, and yet Burke would surely not have disapproved of such a ‘dangerous’ idea, having been used to habeas corpus as a limiting power on autocracy.
In any case, 1789 saw a despotic absolutist monarchy replaced with a new ‘constitutional’ monarchy, similar in effect to that of the English Restoration or Glorious Revolution, in which power sharing was between the king and the people’s representatives, as embodied in the National Assembly. Only when this proved unworkable was monarchy put out of the picture in 1792, and a French Republic declared.
Three years to me is not sudden- after all, as Harold Wilson said, ‘a week is a long time in politics’.
The influence of hostile powers in 1793 and 1794 spurred on a centralization of French government in reply to the exceptional nature of the military and political threat (internal/external) to the cohesion of France- a threat that Burke’s Great Britain aided and abetted.
Once the immediate threats had been dealt with, an easing of the more absolutist tendencies of government came about, which saw power return to the parliamentary body, and only the coup d’etat of 1799 brought this ‘Convention’ to an end.
The ossified traditional nature of the absolutist French monarchy brought about its own destruction- if for instance, it had consulted that ‘traditional’ body, the Estates General (before 1789, last called in 1614!) then perhaps it could have continued like the British monarchy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Hard line righties believe that capitalism is the only morally permissible economic system.
|
Well, then I'm not a hard line rightie.
quote:
Based on what I said before, the Christian has to view capitalism at best as a necessary evil, and probably as a vile menace that requires removal.
|
Vile menace? Plenty of evidence to the contrary. I think they should strive for a balance, in allowing those who are poor to be taken care of through charity, and not left on the streets to fend for themselves, as we see today.
I also want to make another point, that the enemy of the worker, is not the owner of the business, rather the best friend of a worker ought to be his employer. Whereas the workers can help each other, it is the employer who makes sure that there is food on the table. And vice versa. The employer eats because of the work done by his workers.
quote:
Plenty do. There's nothing in the fundamental values of left wing movements that mandates pro-choice.
|
Really. So this is why folks like Dennis Kucinich dismiss their prolife values in order to be elected?
That is why I am disappointed in the left, faced with a progressive social issue, that they have abandoned their calling.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Well if you’re going to quibble about the revolutionary act of enfranchising women being rather a gradual thing because people were campaigning for it for decades beforehand, then the French Revolution can also be seen to be a gradual thing, because the Encylopaedists, les Philosophes and French nobles had been used to discussing the existing French constitution, such as it was, for decades before the final breech with the absolutist monarchy came about. |
The overthrow of the monarchy itself wouldn't been so bad, as I've said, if the French stuck to the other traditions they had. They could have survived if they more or less kept the same systems, but taken the King's power and given it to the Parlements or an executive council. The problem is that the subsequent power takers decided this didn't go far enough, and wanted radical change. They decided this all was bunk, and we should even change the names of the days, how many days in a month, the names of the month (in essense they metricized time). It is symbolic of the number they did on French traditions. They attempted a form of Parisian centralization, which antagonized the countryside (which were pro-monarch anyway) and decided to toss out ALL influences of religion!
If they had gone the conservative route of the American revolt, they would have been ok. When they started to throw out all tradition, willy nilly, the social order begun to break down. A power vaccuum developed and they got a new monarchy not long after.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
This is how I define Left and Right politically:
Left: anti free market, favor tight government regulation of economy, favor big social spending, relunctant to use milirary force, more willing to change social traditions.
Right: pro free market, favor economic deregulation, prefer to emphasize military spending instead of social spending, traditional on social issues. |
The military spending divide is driven primarily by the left's lack of concern over threats to the US, particularly communism which is, after all, socialism, and a worldview that emphasizes America as the problem, not the solution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Boris:
So why is the pope not leftist politically, while these other folks are? |
I don't know where the Pope would be on most political issues, since A) I don't really pay attention to what he says, and B) I don't think he weighs in much on political policy that is totally of secular concern. Regardless, I've known Catholics who go all over the political spectrum, from staunchly right-wing to very left-wing. This would indicate that, as I said, Catholics are not a monolithic voting bloc.
Ted Kennedy's a Catholic, and so is Mel Gibson. How politically in tune do you think they are? It's incredibly simplistic to assume Catholics all share the same political ideology, even prolife ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The overthrow of the monarchy itself wouldn't been so bad, as I've said, if the French stuck to the other traditions they had. They could have survived if they more or less kept the same systems, but taken the King's power and given it to the Parlements or an executive council. |
How much power is an absolutist monarch inclined to share?
If the experience of 17th Century Great Britain is anything to go by, precious little- a lesson not lost on the French, since Charles I's wife, Henrietta, was aunt to Louis XIV, and the Stuarts became pensioners and dependants of the French Crown before the Restoration of Charles II and after the Glorious Revolution and the deposition of James II.
Who would willingly keep traditions such as the lettres de cachet, which could and did send people to prison indefinitely without any chance of a hearing or trial?
The arbitrary imposition of taxes (the absolutist monarchy itself broke with tradition by imposing direct taxes on aristocrats for the first time after the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle in 1748)?
The Parlements were not even parliaments in the modern sense of the word, but bodies of people who had bought their positions.
Habit is a great deadener, as Samuel Beckett said, and even conservative critics of the Ancien Regime (such as many of the Philosophes, the economists of the Physiocrats, including Francois Quesnay, doctor to Louis XV) could not penetrate the layers of petrification surrounding the French monarchy. Tradition in 18th Century France was only force of habit elevated to government, inertia relieved only by foreign and domestic crises and the imposition of new taxes.
The lack of any experience of non-monarchical bodies in government, in itself is a fault that can be laid at the door of the French monarchy- effectively a centralized and centralizing body from the time of the minority of Louis XIII, when power was vested in Richelieu's hands, and afterwards in the persons of Mazarin and Louis XIV's mother, before the apotheosis of Louis XIV as le Roi Soleil.
Even the French Roman Catholic Church acted more like a great modern monopoly corporation- a great conservative stifler of social change and innovation.
'L'Etat, c'est moi' means exactly that in pre-Revolutionary French history- the French monarch is the oppressive Leviathan ultimately engendering its own destruction by tenaciously enshrining traditions and habits as articles of faith and government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OliverFA
|
|
Leeds, UK
Sep 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Left means new, progress. Right means old, anti-progress. All extensions of freedom came because leftists forced rightists to give it up. |
Isn´t a bit contradictory that "freedom" comes because someone forces people? Sorry, but I don´t buy it. Freedom cannot be enforced.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
How much power is an absolutist monarch inclined to share? |
Not saying that an absolutist monarch is willing to share much. Burke was not opposed to overthrowing governments. He was in favor of the American Revolution and Glorious Revolution (as a good Whig). In both 'revolts' the traditions had not been strayed too far from and an argument could be made that in both cases, the government themselves had strayed from their traditions. And, in both cases, it was simply a case of government transforming, most regular people really didn't feel anything buy it, except minor changes.
Burke was a liberal, but one who believed in social order. His founding of modern conservativism (or at least modern American conservativism) is interesting because it is based on liberalism. Gradual change, but change only when it it shown to be a benefit. Don't just change for the sake of changing.
The lack of experience of non-monarchical bodies means the transformation from an absolutist monarchy to a republic should have been a slow gradual process. Remove the King, of course, but gradually phase out old traditions. Don't quit cold turkey. It's kind of like what happened with Russia and capitalism. It should have been a gradual introduction instead of a dunking your head in the tank before you knew how to swim.
Of course the most interesting thing, and why Burke is listened to and read in philosophy classes across the US (at least) is because his "Reflections on the Revolution in France", written in 1790, VERY accurately predicted what was to happen. He predicted a general chaos and a dictator would rise up and take power in that vaccuum. It happened as he said it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-03-2004 07:19
I don't think I've ever seen such an over-the-top parody of paranoia - not even in Dr. Strangelove!
|
|