Equality and the French Revolution
Owen McShane
Equality which generated the terror of the French Revolution. Some
poster challenged me to produce some argument to support this
"preposterous" thought.
I think the following extract from a review of Muravchik's "Heaven on
Earth: The rise and fall of Socialism" does the job quite well:
"Muravchik begins his account of the career of socialism with figures
like François-Noël Babeuf and Sylvain Maréchal, whose radical
egalitarianism and endorsement of violence helped set the tone—and the
murderous program—of the French Revolution. Maréchal, who took to
signing himself l’HSD (l’Homme Sans Dieu, the man without God), was
above all an apostle of radical egalitarianism:equality understood not
as a legal postulate but as an existential imperative. “If there
is a single man on earth who is richer and more powerful than his
fellows,” he wrote, “then the equilibrium is broken: crime and
misfortune are on earth.” It is imperative, Maréchal said in his
Manifesto of Equals, to “remove from every individual the hope of ever
becoming richer, or more powerful, or more distinguished by his
intelligence.” Tough work, that removal, but the promised rewards were
great: really establish equality, Maréchal argued, and the result would
be “the disappearance of boundary marks, hedges, walls, door-locks,
disputes, trials, thefts, murders, all crimes … courts, prisons,
gallows, penalties, … envy, jealousy, insatiability, pride, deception,
duplicity, in short all vices.” Of course, until that happy day arrives
there will be plenty of “trials, thefts, murders, … courts, prisons,
gallows, penalties” in order to hasten the institution of equality.
Babeuf, who called himself “Gracchus” Babeuf after the legendary Roman
land reformer, also put radical equality at the center of his
revolutionary program. Since nothing institutionalized inequality more
than private property, he reasoned, private property and its distillate,
money, must go. Babeuf looked forward to the “general overthrow of the
system of private property” as an “inevitable” adjunct of
revolution. “Society,” he said, “must be made to operate in such
a way that it
eradicates once and for all the desire of a man to become richer,
or wiser, or more
powerful than others.” Like Maréchal—like Robespierre whom he
admired as a “regenerator” who “mow[ed] down all that impeded
him”—Babeuf (who also called himself “the Marat of the Somme”) believed
that “in order to govern judiciously it is necessary to terrorize the
evilly disposed, the royalists, papists and starvers of the public. …
[O]ne cannot govern democratically without this terrorism.” If the cost
of
paradise was unfortunately high, it was as nothing compared with the
envisioned
benefits. “I don’t think it is impossible,” Babeuf enthused to his wife,
“that within a year, if we carry out our measures aright and act with
all necessary prudence, we shall succeed in ensuring general happiness
on earth.”
--
Owen McShane, Rangiora Road, Northland, NZ
See "Straight Thinking On Line" (http://mcshane.orcon.net.nz)
Kelvin Wright
says...
> I suggested in some long lost thread the it was the inclusion of
> Equality which generated the terror of the French Revolution. Some
> poster challenged me to produce some argument to support this
> "preposterous" thought.
> I think the following extract from a review of Muravchik's "Heaven on
> Earth: The rise and fall of Socialism" does the job quite well:
Oh really?
>
> "Muravchik begins his account of the career of socialism with figures
> like François-Noël Babeuf
Babeuf was a Jacobin: a group whose proto-socialist leanings were
repressed by the French Revolutionaries after the revolution. He tried
to forcibly sieze power, was arrested and shot in 1796 - by the
revolutionaries. That is, he was not part of the mainstream of the
revolution, and in fact was seen as an enemy of the revolution. How can
his views be seen to typify the revolution?
> and Sylvain Maréchal,
A minor provincial figure who is rightly missing from the indexes of
most histories of the French Revolution. The claims made in the next
sentence are therefore ridiculous:
> whose radical
> egalitarianism and endorsement of violence helped set the tone—and the
> murderous program—of the French Revolution.
...snip an interesting but irrelevant synopsis of the thinking of these
18thC nobodies....
The French Revolution was the culmination of numerous social and
philosophical currents. The triumph of egalitarianism over "freedom" was
not one of them.
Denver Fletcher
news:MPG.1722891f5...@news.clear.net.nz......
> ...snip an interesting but irrelevant synopsis of the thinking of these
> 18thC nobodies....
>
> The French Revolution was the culmination of numerous social and
> philosophical currents. The triumph of egalitarianism over "freedom" was
> not one of them.
Tell you what: IF, in 200 years time, anyone is quoting *your* opinions,
we'll agree to revisit the questions of 'who is a nobody?' and 'whether the
triumph of egalitarianism over freedom was part of the "philosophical
currents" of the french Revolution?'
Deal?
Owen McShane
Kelvin Wright
says...
You understasnd my point precisely. Quoting my opinions as evidence of
the philosophical undergirding of current new Zealand political
situation has *precisely* as much worth as Owen using Babeuf and
Marechal as evidence for his quaint theories about the French
Revolution.
Kelvin Wright
says...
Your words:
"OR do you think the French revolutionaries had to hand out dictionaries
and linquistic theses as they marched singing Liberte, Egalite and
Fraternite.
As usual it was the Egalite principle which caused all the trouble."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In the context of a discussion about Friedman's thesis that movements
based on freedom brought sweetness and light while those promulgating
equality brought oppression, I think the meaning is fairly clear.
Redbaiter
k...@zn.ten.raelc says...
Right in to the subjective stuff isn't he..???
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist lexicon, the lowest of the low
Owen McShane
The terror was a result of attempting to force equality (that was the
excuse – as with Pol Pot, and Mao the real intention was to cement the
power of the rulers) but no one says that the end result was the triumph
of egalitarianism over liberty.
The fatal error is to confuse equality before the law with forced
equality of outcome.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> In the context of a discussion about Friedman's thesis that movements
> based on freedom brought sweetness and light while those promulgating
> equality brought oppression, I think the meaning is fairly clear.
--
Owen McShane
the socialist ideal which is receiving wide coverage and reportage. But
the latest issue of the New York Review of books has articles on
Rousseau and Revolution which all make reference to the devastating
outcome of enforced equality as an idea - as opposed to the promotion of
equality before the law. Indeed this is one f the crucial differences
between the American Revolution and the French one.
Kelvin Wright
feelings of hatred and outrage the bourgeoisie and peasantry felt toward
the aristocracy because of the immediate past history of France. It was
also, as it usually is, an instrument of politics.
> (that was the
> excuse – as with Pol Pot, and Mao the real intention was to cement the
> power of the rulers)
Exactly. The terror was an instrument of power, and revenge. Pretensions
to equality were, if anything, post hoc rationalisation.
> but no one says that the end result was the triumph
> of egalitarianism over liberty.
End results weren't under discussion. Motivation was. Friedman's
contention that a drive for egalitarianism led to the terror is
unsupported, historically.
> The fatal error is to confuse equality before the law with forced
> equality of outcome.
The revolutionaries had no great commitment to equality as we would
understand it, except in certain isolated instances, such as the
Jacobins. Theses groups were ruthlessly suppressed.
Kelvin Wright
says...
rise to socialism were alive and well during the Revolution. There is no
doubt that they were influential in some quarters but they were
peripheral to the main thrust of revolutionary thinking which was
democratic and similar to that which informed the Americans.
> the latest issue of the New York Review of books has articles on
> Rousseau and Revolution which all make reference to the devastating
> outcome of enforced equality as an idea - as opposed to the promotion of
> equality before the law. Indeed this is one f the crucial differences
> between the American Revolution and the French one.
Balderdash. The philosophical antecedents were identical. The
interesting question is, given the same philosophical undergirding, why
did the two revolutions proceed so differently? The crucial difference
was in the immediate pre-revolutionary history of both countries. The
Americans did not suffer the effects of a ruined economy or have the
experience of generations of Aristocratic corruption and oppression,
which would fuel a quest for vengeance. It may well suit contemporary
economic analysis to describe the revolution in the terms you describe
but it is historically untenable.
Owen McShane
distinction - he supported the American Revolution because it was a
revolution attempting to maintain the institutions which the American
settlers had developed. He attacked the French revolution because it
believed that Utopia could only be found by destroying all existing
insititutions and building them to a grand design. Curiously, although
we associate the French revolution the belief in the ability to design a
society from a blank slate is the ulimate expression of the
Enlightenment tradition.
The French revolution shows what happens when the heady brew of
Romanticism is mixed with the potential dynamite of the over-confidence
in reason.
Twentieth century fascism repeated the experiment.
Brian Dooley
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 23:06:09 +1300, Owen McShane
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>Kelvin Wright wrote:
snip---
>> The French Revolution was the culmination of numerous social and
>> philosophical currents. The triumph of egalitarianism over "freedom" was
>> not one of them.
>I never claimed it was. And I do not know anyone who does.
Good Heavens, I was sure you did.
Where did I go wrong?
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Denver Fletcher
news:kihjbusc6hc1fdkft...@4ax.com...
I think he's already answered that. I'm surprised that it escaped the
steely jaws of your memory.
His quibble was with the word "triumph" as he claimed only that an attempt
to enforce equality of outcomes was involved, not a triumph of same.
Or words to similar effect.
Owen McShane
interpreation makes the claim that the culmination or end result of the
French Revolution was the triumph of egalitarianism and this is the
interpretation I put on it.
The other is that this proposed triumph was one of the inputs – and of
course I agree with that. The second thesis is that this push for
imposed equality of outcome led to the Terror - whether as an excuse or
a direct cause and effect; in reality a combination of both.
YOu cannot force "equality" because people are not equal. How can anyone
force me to be the equal of Jonah Lomu on the football field. So who
decides what should determine the equality of our ranking.
EQuality before the law however has stood the test of time in many
societies - departures from this principle have led to great tragedies.
> Brian Dooley
>
> Wellington New Zealand
--
Kelvin Wright
says...
> Kelvin Wright wrote:
...snip...
> > > Let's be fair. These are not my quotes but are from a major history of
> > > the socialist ideal which is receiving wide coverage and reportage.
> > Point taken. And there is no denying that the ideas which later gave
> > rise to socialism were alive and well during the Revolution. There is no
> > doubt that they were influential in some quarters but they were
> > peripheral to the main thrust of revolutionary thinking which was
> > democratic and similar to that which informed the Americans.
> > > But
> > > the latest issue of the New York Review of books has articles on
> > > Rousseau and Revolution which all make reference to the devastating
> > > outcome of enforced equality as an idea - as opposed to the promotion of
> > > equality before the law. Indeed this is one f the crucial differences
> > > between the American Revolution and the French one.
> >
> > Balderdash. The philosophical antecedents were identical. The
> > interesting question is, given the same philosophical undergirding, why
> > did the two revolutions proceed so differently? The crucial difference
> > was in the immediate pre-revolutionary history of both countries. The
> > Americans did not suffer the effects of a ruined economy or have the
> > experience of generations of Aristocratic corruption and oppression,
> > which would fuel a quest for vengeance. It may well suit contemporary
> > economic analysis to describe the revolution in the terms you describe
> > but it is historically untenable.
> What has my analysis to do with contemporary economics.
You were quoting Friedman, and later some unspecified stuff from the New
York book review which were tracing the history of socialism and, in
Friedman's case, makingsome sort of analysis of contemporary economic
and political models.
> Burke
I assume you are meaning Edmund Burke?
> made the
> distinction - he supported the American Revolution because it was a
> revolution attempting to maintain the institutions which the American
> settlers had developed.
In which case the claim that he supported the American Revolution is
debatable. (depends on what you mean by support, but let's not tread
that path again) He supported employing moral considerations in dealing
with the colonies, as well as legal ones, and was critical of the
British colonial policy, but outright support? consider this quote: "I
reprobate no form of government merely upon abstract principles. There
may be situations in which the purely democratic form will become
necessary. There may be some (very few, and very particularly
circumstanced) where it would be clearly desirable. This I do not take
to be the case of France or of any other great country."
In other words, like most 18thC thinkers, he regarded democracy as
anathaema in France or America or anywhere else.
> He attacked the French revolution because it
> believed that Utopia could only be found by destroying all existing
> insititutions and building them to a grand design.
He applied the same measured reason to the French revolution as he
applied to the American one. He had the same suspicion of democracy in
France as in America but even more so because France was nearer and had
a longer history. He believed in monarchy as the highest form of
government and was more scandalised by the French deposing their
monarchy than the Americans who never really had one.
> Curiously, although
> we associate the French revolution the belief in the ability to design a
> society from a blank slate is the ulimate expression of the
> Enlightenment tradition.
> The French revolution shows what happens when the heady brew of
> Romanticism is mixed with the potential dynamite of the over-confidence
> in reason.
You persist in the error that the French Revolution was purely
philosophically driven.
Owen McShane
Two points. I believe we have moved on from the Friedman debate which is
about contemporary political philosophy which tends to be econocentric.
But so many people associate contemporary economics with econometrics
that I took this meaning from your question.
The New York Review material is about Romanticism and the Enlighenment
(as is the Berlin material) which is surely philosophy.
The philosophs blended economics with philosophy and economics and the
debates of matters fo the political economy where rich and fruitful. We
tend to see philosophy and economics as separate issues in the Anglo
American literature - which is part of the appeal of the Austrian School
which has never done so.
> > Burke
> I assume you are meaning Edmund Burke?
> > made the
> > distinction - he supported the American Revolution because it was a
> > revolution attempting to maintain the institutions which the American
> > settlers had developed.
> In which case the claim that he supported the American Revolution is
> debatable. (depends on what you mean by support, but let's not tread
> that path again) He supported employing moral considerations in dealing
> with the colonies, as well as legal ones, and was critical of the
> British colonial policy, but outright support? consider this quote: "I
> reprobate no form of government merely upon abstract principles. There
> may be situations in which the purely democratic form will become
> necessary. There may be some (very few, and very particularly
> circumstanced) where it would be clearly desirable. This I do not take
> to be the case of France or of any other great country."
Whatever quotes you may care to extract Burke was attached for his
apparantly inconsistent approach to the two revolutions. His
parliamentary colleagues saw him as supporting the American Revolution
and attacking the French one. Maybe they had it wrong but there can be
no doubt that he predicted the Terror and got it right.
> In other words, like most 18thC thinkers, he regarded democracy as
> anathaema in France or America or anywhere else.
The American revolution was followed by an intense debate called the
Federal State papers which debated the merits of Monarchy and Democracy
and came up with the Repupblic.
> > He attacked the French revolution because it
> > believed that Utopia could only be found by destroying all existing
> > insititutions and building them to a grand design.
> He applied the same measured reason to the French revolution as he
> applied to the American one. He had the same suspicion of democracy in
> France as in America but even more so because France was nearer and had
> a longer history. He believed in monarchy as the highest form of
> government and was more scandalised by the French deposing their
> monarchy than the Americans who never really had one.
>
> > Curiously, although
> > we associate the French revolution the belief in the ability to design a
> > society from a blank slate is the ulimate expression of the
> > Enlightenment tradition.
> > The French revolution shows what happens when the heady brew of
> > Romanticism is mixed with the potential dynamite of the over-confidence
> > in reason.
>
> You persist in the error that the French Revolution was purely
> philosophically driven.
> > Twentieth century fascism repeated the experiment.
Of course not. But we began with discussion of political philosophy. No
great event such as the French Revolution can be put down to any single
cause.
Many threads weave the blanket. But would you volunteer what threads
were more important than those which we would describe as economic and
philosophical?
> >
It is surely difficult to imagine the French Revolution (as we know it)
occuring without the American Precedent and the American Revolution
grows out of a powerful philosophical and economic tradition which was
well nourished by Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith and so on.
These were not "grand designers" – on the other hand the Jacobins took
their nourishment from different sources. The end result is that the US
government is now the oldest on record while France reverted to Monarchy
- via a flirtation with an Emporer – in a very short time.
Brian Dooley
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:33:00 +1300, Owen McShane
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
snip---
> Burke made the
>distinction - he supported the American Revolution because it was a
>revolution attempting to maintain the institutions which the American
>settlers had developed.
And which were all derived from British models, including much of
the Constitution.
>He attacked the French revolution because it
>believed that Utopia could only be found by destroying all existing
>insititutions and building them to a grand design.
And also because he found that your genuine revolution was not a
reasonably civilised scrap between antagonists having much in
common, but rather a bloody no-holds-barred procedure which, when
it runs out of legitimate victims, usually devours its
instigators.
And also because he had the hots for Marie-Antoinette.
>Curiously, although
>we associate the French revolution the belief in the ability to design a
>society from a blank slate is the ulimate expression of the
>Enlightenment tradition.
>The French revolution shows what happens when the heady brew of
>Romanticism is mixed with the potential dynamite of the over-confidence
>in reason.
>Twentieth century fascism repeated the experiment.
Where do you get this overblown bollocks from?
The middle classes were pissed off with being middle, and the
peasants were pissed off with being peasants.
You don't need much else other than a foolish king, a stupid
aristocracy and a corrupt church.
Kelvin Wright
bri...@clear.net.nz says...
>
...snip...
>
> The middle classes were pissed off with being middle, and the
> peasants were pissed off with being peasants.
>
> You don't need much else other than a foolish king, a stupid
> aristocracy and a corrupt church.
stupid aristocracy and corrupt church certainly helped, but as good an
analysis of the French Revolution as I've seen.
Owen McShane
Rouseau justified the attack on the church.
Without justification people tend not to act.
But this debate has now lowered to pap.
> Brian Dooley
>
> Wellington New Zealand
--
Owen McShane
things to rights with a few laws and changes.
IN reality the world is more complex.
And in the end ideas not statistics or facts shape men's actions.
One can argue that Louis the XIV was too successful for the good of the
nation. He maintained the ancient regime beyond its used by date.
However if you want to reduce history to a few simple catch phrases
there is little point in continuing the debate.
At this stage I suppose I should say "pooh poohs and wee wees" and join
the other lowest common denominator.
Brian Dooley
>"Brian Dooley" <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:kihjbusc6hc1fdkft...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 23:06:09 +1300, Owen McShane
>> <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>> >Kelvin Wright wrote:
>> snip---
>> >> The French Revolution was the culmination of numerous social and
>> >> philosophical currents. The triumph of egalitarianism over "freedom"
>was
>> >> not one of them.
>> >I never claimed it was. And I do not know anyone who does.
>>
>> Good Heavens, I was sure you did.
>>
>> Where did I go wrong?
>
>
>
>I think he's already answered that. I'm surprised that it escaped the
>steely jaws of your memory.
It didn't, it arrived here later.
>
>His quibble was with the word "triumph" as he claimed only that an attempt
>to enforce equality of outcomes was involved, not a triumph of same.
>
>Or words to similar effect.
>
Of one thing you can be sure; nobody claimed anything more than
equality before the law for peasant or duke.
And another thing you can be sure of is that the Terror, which is
dated roughly April 1793 to July 1974 (during which time the
young republic was faced with invasion from without and treason
from within), was an attempt at protecting the Revolution from
its enemies, not an attempt to force 'equality' on anyone.
Denver Fletcher
I think that may be an over simplification, in that there are always people
willing and ready to take ruthless advantage of such things, but I take
your point.
Owen McShane
were irrelevant to the course of the French or American Revolution.
Dooley finally made the claim that the French revolution could be
explained by a stupid monarch, poor peasants and a corrupt church - or
words to that effect. His colleague in arms agreed and said this was the
best summary of the French Revolution he had read - or words to that
effect.
So I presume that the Russian Revolution was caused by a stupid Czar,
poor peasants and a corrupt church - and that the ideas of Marx, Lenin,
Engels etc had nothing to do with it.
I find this astonishing on the one hand but a predictable outcome of
those who will resort to any argument - no matter how puerile - to
defend their ideological position – while all the time proclaiming that
they have no ideology.
Daniel Silva
news:3CBBEC...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> The key point is that both Dooley and his friend are arguing that ideas
> were irrelevant to the course of the French or American Revolution.
> Dooley finally made the claim that the French revolution could be
> explained by a stupid monarch, poor peasants and a corrupt church - or
> words to that effect. His colleague in arms agreed and said this was the
> best summary of the French Revolution he had read - or words to that
> effect.
> So I presume that the Russian Revolution was caused by a stupid Czar,
> poor peasants and a corrupt church - and that the ideas of Marx, Lenin,
> Engels etc had nothing to do with it.
> I find this astonishing on the one hand but a predictable outcome of
> those who will resort to any argument - no matter how puerile - to
> defend their ideological position - while all the time proclaiming that
> they have no ideology.
Ay this point, Dooley will crawl out and ask you to define "ideology" or
"have no" or something.
Kelvin Wright
says...
...snip...
> > I think that may be an over simplification, in that there are always people
> > willing and ready to take ruthless advantage of such things, but I take
> > your point.
> The key point is that both Dooley and his friend
> are arguing that ideas
> were irrelevant to the course of the French or American Revolution.
You made the preposterous claim that some idea of equality was the key
factor in the different courses taken by the two revolutions, and have
not yet been able to substantiate this except by a highly irrelevant
quote from two very minor revolutionary figures and some equally
irrelevant waffle about romanticism. You seem to have only a passing
knowledge of the events of the French Revolution and your knowledge of
its philosophical basis seems to be confined to the footnotes of a
couple of books you are currently dabbling in.
Historians are never likely to agree on the extent to which philosophy
affected the course of the French Revolution. The revolutionaries, or at
least the thinking ones, were influenced largely by people writing a
generation before them - Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, et al. - who
had no great concern with political questions. These thinkers left no
prescribed courses of economic or political action, and when they found
themselves in possession of power, the revolutionaries interpreted their
works as the situation gave them leave. They were influenced by quite
contradictory scholars, particularly Montesqueieu and Rousseau and
tended to make their own amalgams of the thoughts of various influences
as it suited them. Even Robespierre, a devoted disciples of Rousseau,
said there were ideas in Rousseau best left in the books. The revolution
was a work in progress: a myriad of ideas informing the various leaders
worked out in the context of social conditions largely out of their
control. Of course ideas had an influence on the course of events. But
to condense these ideas down to some vague notion of equality is
peurile, juvenile pap. Although the ideas influenced the course of
things, two things were of greater influence: visceral emotion borne of
generations of oppression and the unique set of circumstances found in
late 18thC France.
> Dooley finally made the claim that the French revolution could be
> explained by a stupid monarch, poor peasants and a corrupt church - or
> words to that effect. His colleague in arms agreed and said this was the
> best summary of the French Revolution he had read - or words to that
> effect.
It was indeed a succinct and accurate statement. Certainly more accurate
than anything you have offered in this conversation to date.
> So I presume that the Russian Revolution was caused by a stupid Czar,
> poor peasants and a corrupt church
To a large extent it was. But again, you seem very keen to reduce a
complex social/economic/political phenomenon to simplistic theories.
> - and that the ideas of Marx, Lenin,
> Engels etc had nothing to do with it.
And when have I argued that?
> I find this astonishing on the one hand but a predictable outcome of
> those who will resort to any argument - no matter how puerile - to
> defend their ideological position – while all the time proclaiming that
> they have no ideology.
You'll have to explain to me who this convoluted and cryptic sentence
refers to, as it seems to most accurately reflect you in this argument,
and I am sure you did not mean it to.
Kelvin Wright
dan...@NOSPAMsilva.co.nz says...
What exactly do you mean by "Ay this point?"
Daniel Silva
> Daniel Silva wrote:
> > Ay this point, Dooley will crawl out and ask you to define "ideology" or
> > "have no" or something.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "Ay this point?"
Aye, aye. Good point, laddie.
Owen McShane
>
> In article <3CBBEC...@wk.planet.gen.nz>, omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz
> says...
> ...snip...
>
> > > I think that may be an over simplification, in that there are always people
> > > willing and ready to take ruthless advantage of such things, but I take
> > > your point.
> > The key point is that both Dooley and his friend
> > are arguing that ideas
> > were irrelevant to the course of the French or American Revolution.
>
> You made the preposterous claim that some idea of equality was the key
> factor in the different courses taken by the two revolutions, and have
> not yet been able to substantiate this except by a highly irrelevant
> quote from two very minor revolutionary figures and some equally
> irrelevant waffle about romanticism.
Why is a summary of the conflict between the Enlightement tradition and
Romanticism "waffle". Many have made this topic a theme of many books.
May I refer to Berlin's Melon Lectures now in book form as "The Roots of
Romanticism"
Almost all political conflict today is the conlfict between these two
"ideals" or "ideologies" in some form or other. When Rousseau wrote the
Social Contract he was working within the Enlightenment Tradition while
Emile was his great Romantic work.
Just look at what is happening to the Alliance. And Romanticism puts
action or art and integrity ahead of outcomes and theory in assessing
the merit of human behaviour. Anderton is in the Romantic tradition when
he peddles his "integrity" and so on and so forth. When I think of the
major works which focus on this tension I wonder why you as a historian
apparantly are now aware of it or refuse to acknowledge it.
You seem to have only a passing
> knowledge of the events of the French Revolution and your knowledge of
> its philosophical basis seems to be confined to the footnotes of a
> couple of books you are currently dabbling in.
Thanks for that. I have over 5,000 books in my personal library and they
are not paper backs from the Grisham best sellers kind of list.
I have actually read most of Marx - have you?
And I have read Locke and Hulme and much of Plato. Political philosophy
is my hobby along with cosmology.
> Historians are never likely to agree on the extent to which philosophy
> affected the course of the French Revolution. The revolutionaries, or at
> least the thinking ones, were influenced largely by people writing a
> generation before them - Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, et al. - who
> had no great concern with political questions.
Good grief. Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau had no great concern with
political questions. What do you think politics is about. Montesquie
provided the model for the US constitutions separation of powers.
Roussea gave rise to a whole political movement in Germany which went on
to infect the world. DO you really think that Rousseau's tirade against
private property was not a political statement?
Do I detect a historian who does not like non union members commenting
on his domain?
All I said in reality was that of the three slogans Liberty Fraternity
and Equality it was the equality slogan which caused much of the
trouble.
I still believe this to be true while at the same time I could write a
whole essay about the French Revolution (and I have) without ever
mentioning it (and I didn't.) The essay was about the origins of the
terms left and right compariing what they meant at those time with what
they mean today.
This was in 1992 as I recall so it is not a late interest. And may even
precede your own, for all I know.
Kelvin Wright
says...
> Kelvin Wright wrote:
> >
> > In article <3CBBEC...@wk.planet.gen.nz>, omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz
> > says...
> > ...snip...
> >
> > > > I think that may be an over simplification, in that there are always people
> > > > willing and ready to take ruthless advantage of such things, but I take
> > > > your point.
> > > The key point is that both Dooley and his friend
> > > are arguing that ideas
> > > were irrelevant to the course of the French or American Revolution.
> >
> > You made the preposterous claim that some idea of equality was the key
> > factor in the different courses taken by the two revolutions, and have
> > not yet been able to substantiate this except by a highly irrelevant
> > quote from two very minor revolutionary figures and some equally
> > irrelevant waffle about romanticism.
>
> Why is a summary of the conflict between the Enlightement tradition and
> Romanticism "waffle".
connections you apparantly made between your analysis and the subject
under discussion were not clear to anyone but yourself.
> Many have made this topic a theme of many books.
> May I refer to Berlin's Melon Lectures now in book form as "The Roots of
> Romanticism"
Thank you. You may indeed, and as I have a passing interest in
Romanticism (but from a literary point of view not an economic or
political one) I will buy it and put it on my to be read shelf. It may
not get read until very late in the year.
> Almost all political conflict today is the conlfict between these two
> "ideals" or "ideologies" in some form or other.
You mean, I assume that all political conflicts can be interpreted in
terms of these trwo terms? With how much validity is a moot point.
I find your use of Romanticism in this way odd. Romanticism can be
contrasted to Classicism but not to 'the enlightenment tradition' which
was one of Romanticism's antecedents, or even one of its consituent
parts. You seem not to be talking about the literary/historical
phenomena of Romanticism but rather about the psychological pereferences
Jung called feeling and thought.
> When Rousseau wrote the
> Social Contract he was working within the Enlightenment Tradition while
> Emile was his great Romantic work.
Again, an odd distinction. Why do your say this?
> Just look at what is happening to the Alliance. And Romanticism puts
> action or art and integrity ahead of outcomes and theory in assessing
> the merit of human behaviour.
A Jungian analysis would say it is a conflict between feeling ie a
values and person centred approach and thought ie a logic and principle
centred approach. Romanticism usually carries an implication not only of
"action, or art and integrity" but also of aesthetic considerations.
Which makes it hard for me to apply the term to political or economic
matters.
> Anderton is in the Romantic tradition when
> he peddles his "integrity" and so on and so forth. When I think of the
> major works which focus on this tension I wonder why you as a historian
> apparantly are now aware of it or refuse to acknowledge it.
I am not an historian. Wherever did you get that idea?
>
> You seem to have only a passing
> > knowledge of the events of the French Revolution and your knowledge of
> > its philosophical basis seems to be confined to the footnotes of a
> > couple of books you are currently dabbling in.
> Thanks for that. I have over 5,000 books in my personal library and they
> are not paper backs from the Grisham best sellers kind of list.
> I have actually read most of Marx - have you?
So what? Karl Marx has absolutely nothing to do with the matter in hand,
and I am a bit mystified at your bringing him up. And also the size of
your library, for that matter. I am never impressed by people who tell
me how many books they own and what big fat ones they have read lately
as though understanding can be quantified in some way. People who do so
are more often than not so insecure about their intellect that they
surround themselves with books to give themselves and others the
illusion of their own erudition. Not that I am suggesting for a moment
that you are one of them, of course. It's not book ownership or even
reading which matters, but understanding. That's the bit I am waiting
for you to demonstrate.
> And I have read Locke and Hulme and much of Plato. Political philosophy
> is my hobby along with cosmology.
> > Historians are never likely to agree on the extent to which philosophy
> > affected the course of the French Revolution. The revolutionaries, or at
> > least the thinking ones, were influenced largely by people writing a
> > generation before them - Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, et al. - who
> > had no great concern with political questions.
>
> Good grief. Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau had no great concern with
> political questions. What do you think politics is about. Montesquie
> provided the model for the US constitutions separation of powers.
> Roussea gave rise to a whole political movement in Germany which went on
> to infect the world. DO you really think that Rousseau's tirade against
> private property was not a political statement?
Not in any practical sense. His ideas were taken up by others and
applied politically, but the uses others made of him can't be laid at
his door.
No you do not.
> All I said in reality was that of the three slogans Liberty Fraternity
> and Equality it was the equality slogan which caused much of the
> trouble.
And all I have said is that your statement is bullshit and you have not
managed to support it. You still haven't.
> I still believe this to be true while at the same time I could write a
> whole essay about the French Revolution (and I have)
Well bully for you. I have written whole essays about what I did in my
holidays. It didn't turn me into a travel agent, any more than your
essay turned you into any sort of historian.
> without ever
> mentioning it (and I didn't.) The essay was about the origins of the
> terms left and right compariing what they meant at those time with what
> they mean today.
> This was in 1992 as I recall so it is not a late interest. And may even
> precede your own, for all I know.
In other words, your essay was not about the revolution but about some
very modern political terms "left" and "right" which you were seeking to
apply retrospectively to the 18thC.
>
Brian Dooley
Yup, once you've said that you've pretty well said it all - but I
think the main thing was that it had been going on for so long.
If they'd had their blood-letting a bit earlier on it might have
helped.
Brian Dooley
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:31:11 +1300, Owen McShane
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
snip---
>Socialists need simple models to justify their belief that they can set
>things to rights with a few laws and changes.
>IN reality the world is more complex.
>And in the end ideas not statistics or facts shape men's actions.
>One can argue that Louis the XIV was too successful for the good of the
>nation. He maintained the ancient regime beyond its used by date.
>However if you want to reduce history to a few simple catch phrases
>there is little point in continuing the debate.
Like "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"?
History is simply what happened, and all the smart-arsed ideas
aren't going to change that.
>At this stage I suppose I should say "pooh poohs and wee wees" and join
>the other lowest common denominator.
I was reading Michael Basset in the Dom this morning.
Some of it was recognisably what I remember.
Kelvin Wright
says...
> Kelvin Wright wrote:
> >
> > In article <m3rkbu4dq4kd6defu...@4ax.com>,
> > bri...@clear.net.nz says...
> > >
> > ...snip...
> > >
> > > The middle classes were pissed off with being middle, and the
> > > peasants were pissed off with being peasants.
> > >
> > > You don't need much else other than a foolish king, a stupid
> > > aristocracy and a corrupt church.
> >
> > Well, widespread starvation and disease because of the foolish king,
> > stupid aristocracy and corrupt church certainly helped, but as good an
> > analysis of the French Revolution as I've seen.
> Socialists need simple models to justify their belief that they can set
> things to rights with a few laws and changes.
> IN reality the world is more complex.
> And in the end ideas not statistics or facts shape men's actions.
your adherence to a theory of history which is increasingly being
undermined. As the new behaviourists (Pinker et al) are showing that the
behaviour and ideas of individuals is hugely determined by the genotype,
historical behaviourists are recognising that ideas are largely the
product of the historical environment and not the other way around. Mike
Davis'"Late Victorian Holocausts" which examines the influence of
weather patterns on the shape of the British Empire, and on the ideas
which legitimised it is one example, and a darned good one too.
> nation. He maintained the ancient regime beyond its used by date.
few attempts to avert disaster late in the piece: Necker and so forth
but too little and too late.
> However if you want to reduce history to a few simple catch phrases
> there is little point in continuing the debate.
I'm sorry? Who is it claiming that the French Revolution can be reduced
to Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, and particularly Equality?
> At this stage I suppose I should say "pooh poohs and wee wees" and join
> the other lowest common denominator.
It would certainly raise your game if you did so.
Owen McShane
my time on this debate.
At that time "left" and "right" were real physical descriptions as to
who sat on the left and who sat on the left in the French Parliaments.
It is surely of interest to any student of the revolution to follow how
those terms used then have been translated into the terms of today.
But I now realise I am debating with someone who professes much
knowledge and has none.
End of argument,
Owen McShane
Kelvin Wright
says...
...snip...
> Now you reveal an ignorance so profound that I wonder why I have wasted
> my time on this debate.
> At that time "left" and "right" were real physical descriptions as to
> who sat on the left and who sat on the left in the French Parliaments.
Sigh....
France has never had Parliaments. It did however have provincial courts
of appeal called Parlements which developed from the time of Louis ix
onwards (I think. I am doing this from memory) Originally in Paris and
then in provincial areas. These had nothing to do with the terms left
and right. The terms arose from the Estates General which Louis xvi was
forced to call in 1788 for the first time since the mid 1600's.
Originally they referred to those who sat on the left and were generally
inspired by the enlightenment and those on the right who supported the
ancien regime. It's a little bit more complicated than that, but you
seem to have difficulty with simple concepts. The meanings of the term
as generally understood are 20thC.
> It is surely of interest to any student of the revolution to follow how
> those terms used then have been translated into the terms of today.
It is of passing interest to linguists, I suppose to note the
development of these 20thC terms.
>
> But I now realise I am debating with someone who professes much
> knowledge and has none.
I know *exactly* how you feel.
Denver Fletcher
> > knowledge and has none.
>
> I know *exactly* how you feel.
Boys, boys!
I think Job said it best: "Surely you are the people, and wisdom will die
with you."
Get over it. You've long since abandoned any pretence at political debate,
or hadn't you noticed?
Kelvin Wright
den...@paradise.net.nz says...
> "Kelvin Wright" <k...@zn.ten.raelc> wrote in message
> news:MPG.17282887d...@news.clear.net.nz...
> > In article <3CBD43...@wk.planet.gen.nz>, omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz
> > says...
> > ...snip...
> > > But I now realise I am debating with someone who professes much
> > > knowledge and has none.
> >
> > I know *exactly* how you feel.
>
>
> Boys, boys!
>
> I think Job said it best: "Surely you are the people, and wisdom will die
Job 12:2
But I have a mind as well as you; I am not inferior to you. Who does not
know all these things?
Job 12:3
Denver Fletcher
I never meant to suggest any inferiority, only that you had left off
debating.
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:58:22 +1200, "Denver Fletcher"
<den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>"Brian Dooley" <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:0h0nbuonns5kc8r5b...@4ax.com...
>> And another thing you can be sure of is that the Terror, which is
>> dated roughly April 1793 to July 1974 (during which time the
>> young republic was faced with invasion from without and treason
>> from within), was an attempt at protecting the Revolution from
>> its enemies, not an attempt to force 'equality' on anyone.
>
>
>I think that may be an over simplification,
You would.
>in that there are always people
>willing and ready to take ruthless advantage of such things, but I take
>your point.
>
You should.
In the words of Rouget de Lisle:
Allons enfants de la patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrive...
Contre nous de la tyrannie
L'etandard sanglant est leve
Entende-vous dans nos campagnes
Mugir ces feroces soldats?
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras
Egorger vos fils, vos compagnes.
(All together, nah)
Aux armes, citoyens!
Formez vos bataillons!
Marchons! Marchons! Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!
And he should have known since he wrote it at Strasbourg when a
member of the Army of the Rhine in 1792.
Note the date and the reference to cutting of throats.
Brian Dooley
I'll leave that to you now, Daniel. Now that you know what it
means - at last.
Brian Dooley
<k...@zn.ten.raelc> wrote:
snip---
>What exactly do you mean by "Ay this point?"
Finger trouble, or you might say that he got his mouth on upside
down again.
Owen McShane
equality. Both in height and in rank.
Owen McShane
because he had not mentioned Marx. But his and Doooley's analysis of the
causes of the French Revolution are pure Marxist analysis - based on
class conflicts rather than individuals and their ideas. Now there is
noting wrong with Marxist analysis. As Schumpeter said "We are all
Marxists now" (in terms of analysis). Indeed following by final summing
up in a case before the Environment Court Judge Whiting said "This is
the first time this court has heard a quote from the Pope and Marx in
the one submission."
But it is only one mode of analysis and those of us who are not
ideological Marxists are happy to apply many modes of analysis to any
historical or current event. Committed Marxists are not - they refuse to
admit that powerful individuals or their ideas are a real force in
history. As my communist brother used to say at some point in any
argument "But that's not Marxist" and as far as he was concerned that
was the end of it.
When Sharma wrote his history of the French Revolution and in particular
wrote "Comrades" he was debunking the idea that ideas and individuals do
not count.
And by the way if equality was not an issue in the French revolution why
was it that in those "meetings" (which we are not allowed to call
parlements) after Aug 6 so many French aristocrats rushed up to the
lectern to give up their privileges. And why did Phillipe (Louis'
brother) call himself Phillipe Egalite if this was not an issue.
And Parliament is simply the English language translation of Parlement.
I thought about using Parlement but presumed that some twit would then
pick up on the "typo" and we would have another diverging thread.
Kelvin Wright
says...
Welcome back Owen.
I apologise for the unnecessary and unhelpful tone of some of my
previous posts.
...snip...
> Kelvin asked why I pointed out that I had actualy read most of Marx,
> because he had not mentioned Marx. But his and Doooley's analysis of the
> causes of the French Revolution are pure Marxist analysis - based on
> class conflicts rather than individuals and their ideas.
I don't think so. I can't speak for Brian, obviously, but my analysis of
the revolution is not primarily based on class, although class conflict
obviously had a lot to do with it. If I wanted to classify my analysis
of this event I would call it historicist. It would lean to Marxism in
that I believe ideas tend to follow events and not vice versa.
> Now there is
> noting wrong with Marxist analysis. As Schumpeter said "We are all
> Marxists now" (in terms of analysis). Indeed following by final summing
> up in a case before the Environment Court Judge Whiting said "This is
> the first time this court has heard a quote from the Pope and Marx in
> the one submission."
> But it is only one mode of analysis and those of us who are not
> ideological Marxists are happy to apply many modes of analysis to any
> historical or current event.
Agreed. I am not an ideological Marxist. Or any other sort of Marxist
for that matter.
> Committed Marxists are not - they refuse to
> admit that powerful individuals or their ideas are a real force in
> history.
Of course they are. They question at hand is whether they were in this
instance, and I believe factors other than the persuasive sway of
powerful ideas were the *primary* causes of the French Revolution.
Obviously the course of the revolution was shaped by the ideas of its
main protagonists.
> As my communist brother used to say at some point in any
> argument "But that's not Marxist" and as far as he was concerned that
> was the end of it.
> When Sharma wrote his history of the French Revolution and in particular
> wrote "Comrades" he was debunking the idea that ideas and individuals do
> not count.
> And by the way if equality was not an issue in the French revolution why
> was it that in those "meetings" (which we are not allowed to call
> parlements)
Who says you are not? call them what you like. However to prevent
confusion perhaps you should reserve the term for those gatherings
actually called parlements.
> after Aug 6 so many French aristocrats rushed up to the
> lectern to give up their privileges.
Are you speaking here of the parlements or the Constituent Assembly?
With Mmme La Guillotine waiting for me in the square outside, I think I
would have been the first in the queue to give up mine. The question is
finally unanswerable, but why were they doing this? Was it some pure
ideal of equality prompting both the aristocrats and those demanding
that they act this way? I don't think so.
> And why did Phillipe (Louis'
> brother) call himself Phillipe Egalite if this was not an issue.
Probably because he stood an excellent chance of ending up eight inches
shorter if he did not.
But who says it was not an issue? The interesting question is why was it
an issue. Do the actions rise from the ideas? Or are the ideas
appropriated to excuse and explain the actions taken for less
identifiable, more visceral motives? I tend to the latter view. And
please note the tentative nature of my reply here.
> And Parliament is simply the English language translation of Parlement.
Not really. The words have common roots, obviously, but the parlements
functioned in a very different way to the English parliament, and were a
very different form of organisation. The organisation most like the
English Parliament in form and function was the Estates General.
> I thought about using Parlement but presumed that some twit would then
> pick up on the "typo" and we would have another diverging thread.
Your point was about the origin of the terms Left and Right. These terms
arose not in the parlements but in the Estates General, or more
accurately, the Constituent Assembly which developed from it. And my
point was that the terms as used in the French Revolution, while
obviously ancestral to the terms used today, meant something different
from their modern meanings.
Denver Fletcher
> But who says it was not an issue? The interesting question is why was it
> an issue. Do the actions rise from the ideas? Or are the ideas
> appropriated to excuse and explain the actions taken for less
> identifiable, more visceral motives? I tend to the latter view. And
> please note the tentative nature of my reply here.
Noted. But also remember that when I said much the same thing Mr Dooley was
less amenable to the idea.
Not saying you're his lapdog, just that you weren't in the conversation at
that point.
Brian Dooley
<k...@zn.ten.raelc> wrote:
>In article <3CBA9D...@wk.planet.gen.nz>, omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz
>says...
snip---
>I'm sorry? Who is it claiming that the French Revolution can be reduced
>to Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, and particularly Equality?
>
>> At this stage I suppose I should say "pooh poohs and wee wees" and join
>> the other lowest common denominator.
>
>It would certainly raise your game if you did so.
>
Is this the right place to mention that whoever it was said that
the pen is mightier than the sword probably wasn't a swordsman?
Later: I've looked it up. It was Edward Bulwer-Lytton.
And he wasn't.
Brian Dooley
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
snip---
>But I now realise I am debating with someone who professes much
>knowledge and has none.
But I knew, Owen.
>End of argument,
Care to go for double or quits?
Owen McShane
>
> In article <3CBE86...@wk.planet.gen.nz>, omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz
> says...
>
> Welcome back Owen.
> I apologise for the unnecessary and unhelpful tone of some of my
> previous posts.
> ...snip...
>
> > Kelvin asked why I pointed out that I had actualy read most of Marx,
> > because he had not mentioned Marx. But his and Doooley's analysis of the
> > causes of the French Revolution are pure Marxist analysis - based on
> > class conflicts rather than individuals and their ideas.
> I don't think so. I can't speak for Brian, obviously, but my analysis of
> the revolution is not primarily based on class, although class conflict
> obviously had a lot to do with it. If I wanted to classify my analysis
> of this event I would call it historicist.
Popper points out that historicism is essentially Marxist - and he wrote
that in Christchurch.
It would lean to Marxism in that I believe ideas tend to follow events
and not vice versa. BUt how can you you say this of the FRench
Revolution? - which followed the American Revolution and certainly its
processes were inspired by Paine's Rights of Man.
I concede that France was ripe for Revolution - but the form of the
Revolution was driven by a mix of ideas from Scotland, America and
France (the enlightenment end of it) and from Germany (The Romantic end
of it).
> > Now there is
> > noting wrong with Marxist analysis. As Schumpeter said "We are all
> > Marxists now" (in terms of analysis). Indeed following my final summing
> > up in a case before the Environment Court Judge Whiting said "This is
> > the first time this court has heard a quote from the Pope and Marx in
> > the one submission."
> > But it is only one mode of analysis and those of us who are not
> > ideological Marxists are happy to apply many modes of analysis to any
> > historical or current event.
> Agreed. I am not an ideological Marxist. Or any other sort of Marxist
> for that matter. BUt we all are. As soon as you talk about oppression and class etc and so on you are adopting Marxist analysis.
> > Committed Marxists are not - they refuse to
> > admit that powerful individuals or their ideas are a real force in
> > history.
> Of course they are. They question at hand is whether they were in this
> instance, and I believe factors other than the persuasive sway of
> powerful ideas were the *primary* causes of the French Revolution.
A revolution of some sort was bound to happen. But the form it took was
driven by the ideas of the time. Russia was due for a revolution but the
form it took was driven by a combination of ideas and some strong
leaders - ruthless is a better word.
> Obviously the course of the revolution was shaped by the ideas of its
> main protagonists.
> > As my communist brother used to say at some point in any
> > argument "But that's not Marxist" and as far as he was concerned that
> > was the end of it.
> > When Sharma wrote his history of the French Revolution and in particular
> > wrote "Comrades" he was debunking the idea that ideas and individuals do
> > not count.
> > And by the way if equality was not an issue in the French revolution why
> > was it that in those "meetings" (which we are not allowed to call
> > parlements)
>
> Who says you are not? call them what you like. However to prevent
> confusion perhaps you should reserve the term for those gatherings
> actually called parlements.
> > after Aug 6 so many French aristocrats rushed up to the
> > lectern to give up their privileges.
> Are you speaking here of the parlements or the Constituent Assembly?
I cannot recall if they were either. I have been speaking from memory
throughout this debate.
> With Mmme La Guillotine waiting for me in the square outside, I think I
> would have been the first in the queue to give up mine. The question is
> finally unanswerable, but why were they doing this? Was it some pure
> ideal of equality prompting both the aristocrats and those demanding
> that they act this way? I don't think so.
Well, I now have opened one of my fat books (I'm not sure why - I am
damned if I do it seems and damned if I don't.) Sharma "Citizens" page
805.
"Purity became a political fetish"
(Me: There is a truly dangerous idea. Witneses the Taleban and Nazi
Germany)
"Following a proposal by Merlin de Thionville, the Jacobins initiated a
labourious self-scrutiny in which each member aswered the questions "How
much were you worth in 1789; how much are you worth now and if your
aware worth more how did you come buy it?"
Now go back to my original quotes from the "minor footnoters".
> > And why did Phillipe (Louis'
> > brother) call himself Phillipe Egalite if this was not an issue.
(Actually his cousin before I am corrected. )
> Probably because he stood an excellent chance of ending up eight inches
> shorter if he did not.
> But who says it was not an issue? The interesting question is why was it
> an issue. Do the actions rise from the ideas? Or are the ideas
> appropriated to excuse and explain the actions taken for less
> identifiable, more visceral motives? I tend to the latter view. And
> please note the tentative nature of my reply here.
But the ideas are clearly set down in a score of books written before
the Revolution.
The events did not occur in an ideological vacuum.
> > And Parliament is simply the English language translation of Parlement.
>
> Not really. The words have common roots, obviously, but the parlements
> functioned in a very different way to the English parliament, and were a
> very different form of organisation. The organisation most like the
> English Parliament in form and function was the Estates General.
>
> > I thought about using Parlement but presumed that some twit would then
> > pick up on the "typo" and we would have another diverging thread.
>
> Your point was about the origin of the terms Left and Right. These terms
> arose not in the parlements but in the Estates General, or more
> accurately, the Constituent Assembly which developed from it. And my
> point was that the terms as used in the French Revolution, while
> obviously ancestral to the terms used today, meant something different
> from their modern meanings.
This was the point I was making in my 1992 essay.
My essay was about the way the term begain the consituent assembly then
carried through into the parlements and then became the normal seating
arrangement in Parliaments throughout the BRitish world including New
Zealand - where the Labour reps sit on the left and the coservatives sit
on the right of the speaker. The history of the groups who were defined
as left and right through this process is fascinating. I wrote the essay
to demonstrate that right and left had always been a changing pair of
terms and to argue that while the 'left' tend to have a unifying body of
thought this is no longer so. For example people describe me as "right"
but when I hear about right wing skin heads I wonder what on earth I am
supposed to share of their perverted view of the world.
Maybe we should revert to mountains and rivers or something.
BUt the reason why equality becomes a destructive idea in any
"redistributive" revolution is that it cannot deliver the high
expectations.
The French truly believed that after the revolution there would be
plenty to go round because the riches of the rich would now be in the
hands of the poor.
There wasn't enough to go round and revolutions tend to destroy whatever
wealth there is anyhow.
We have seen this in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has persauded his black citizens
that once they lay their hands on all that white farm land there will be
food a plenty.
There isn't because the farms are reverting to weeds. A militia member
actually complained on television that the white farmers whose land had
been taken wouldn't show them how to farm. He actually thought this was
"unfair."
Sharma has a whole chapter on false expectations and the bread rules
(rationing) etc which inevitably followed and once the plenty does not
arrive you need to find a scapegoat.
See France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Fiji, and on and
on.
Denver Fletcher
> Kelvin Wright wrote:
> > In article <3CBE86...@wk.planet.gen.nz>, omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz
> > says...
> It would lean to Marxism in that I believe ideas tend to follow events
> and not vice versa.
Surely the reverse is *equally* true?
Ideas follow events and then events spring from those ideas and so on, ad
infinitum?
A chain of event-idea-event-idea occurs. Wow! almost sounds like a
scientific process of theory-test-theory-test, doesn't it?
History as education. What a novel thought, that history has something to
teach us about reality!
> BUt how can you you say this of the FRench
> Revolution?
Because it should be obvious to anyone not "committed to an ideology" (or
ideological approach) that many idea-event-idea-event chains were
inextricably interwoven in the French Revolution. To unravel them all
analytically one would have to know the thoughts and actions of every
individual involved!
But one *can* and perhaps should examine both the major events *and* the
major ideas that drove the revolution from its beginnings in the corrupt
elite/impoverished poor to its persistence today in French politics.
And recognise that *both* are significant and useful in gaining some
understanding, and that discarding either out of ideological commitment to
some notion of how history necessarily must evolve is hardly sensible.
A plague on both your houses.
Owen McShane
>
> "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> news:3CBF49...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > Kelvin Wright wrote:
> > > In article <3CBE86...@wk.planet.gen.nz>, omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz
> > > says...
> ...
> > It would lean to Marxism in that I believe ideas tend to follow events
> > and not vice versa.
>
> Surely the reverse is *equally* true?
>
> Ideas follow events and then events spring from those ideas and so on, ad
> infinitum?
>
> A chain of event-idea-event-idea occurs. Wow! almost sounds like a
> scientific process of theory-test-theory-test, doesn't it?
>
> History as education. What a novel thought, that history has something to
> teach us about reality!
This is Popper's central thesis. The the scientific method and democracy
are similar in that both are based on refutation and that any idea is
subject to criticism.
> > BUt how can you you say this of the FRench
> > Revolution?
>
> Because it should be obvious to anyone not "committed to an ideology" (or
> ideological approach) that many idea-event-idea-event chains were
> inextricably interwoven in the French Revolution. To unravel them all
> analytically one would have to know the thoughts and actions of every
> individual involved!
>
> But one *can* and perhaps should examine both the major events *and* the
> major ideas that drove the revolution from its beginnings in the corrupt
> elite/impoverished poor to its persistence today in French politics.
>
> And recognise that *both* are significant and useful in gaining some
> understanding, and that discarding either out of ideological commitment to
> some notion of how history necessarily must evolve is hardly sensible.
>
> A plague on both your houses.
--
Owen McShane
importance of action - and indeed my training has been all about
choosing from the wide range of analytical approaches now available. We
have Marxist analysis (see Barrington Moore Lord and Peasant etc),
economic analysis (Adam Smith, Friedman), Popperian analysis and
particularly his Open society/tribal model, and Berlin analaysis
(enlightenment/romantisism) and then there is behavioural analysis and
so on and so on.
I must say I was surprised by the vehemence of the argument mounted by
Dooley and Wright that ideas do not count.
If so how do religions have any influence.
And is Darwinism a non event with no influence on human behaviour or
action?
Weird stuff.
Kelvin Wright
says...
> Kelvin Wright wrote:
...snip...
> > > Kelvin asked why I pointed out that I had actualy read most of Marx,
> > > because he had not mentioned Marx. But his and Doooley's analysis of the
> > > causes of the French Revolution are pure Marxist analysis - based on
> > > class conflicts rather than individuals and their ideas.
> > I don't think so. I can't speak for Brian, obviously, but my analysis of
> > the revolution is not primarily based on class, although class conflict
> > obviously had a lot to do with it. If I wanted to classify my analysis
> > of this event I would call it historicist.
>
> Popper points out that historicism is essentially Marxist - and he wrote
> that in Christchurch.
This statement is profoundly reassuring, as it reminds me that even the
greatest among us can say some *really* dumb things.
I suppose with the poor guy being in Christchurch, he may have said this
after a fairly heavy night on the turps, and who can blame him?
>
> It would lean to Marxism in that I believe ideas tend to follow events
> and not vice versa. BUt how can you you say this of the FRench
> Revolution? - which followed the American Revolution and certainly its
> processes were inspired by Paine's Rights of Man.
> I concede that France was ripe for Revolution - but the form of the
> Revolution was driven by a mix of ideas from Scotland, America and
> France (the enlightenment end of it) and from Germany (The Romantic end
> of it).
What factors determined which ideas, out of the scores, perhaps hundreds
available to the revolutionaries, were formative?
>
...snip...
>
> A revolution of some sort was bound to happen. But the form it took was
> driven by the ideas of the time. Russia was due for a revolution but the
> form it took was driven by a combination of ideas and some strong
> leaders - ruthless is a better word.
Exactly. But I would go further. The ideas adopted by the
revolutionaries, and the sorts of men who attained leadership was
decided by social/political/economic forces outside the control of and
barely discernible to the revolutionaries.
>
...snip...
>
> Well, I now have opened one of my fat books (I'm not sure why - I am
> damned if I do it seems and damned if I don't.) Sharma "Citizens" page
> 805.
> "Purity became a political fetish"
> (Me: There is a truly dangerous idea. Witneses the Taleban and Nazi
> Germany)
> "Following a proposal by Merlin de Thionville, the Jacobins initiated a
> labourious self-scrutiny in which each member aswered the questions "How
> much were you worth in 1789; how much are you worth now and if your
> aware worth more how did you come buy it?"
Interesting. This is very similar to the self examination which took
place in the class meetings of the early Methodists - wwhich were, of
course, taking place across the English channel at precisely the same
time. *Very* similasr questions were asked weekly of each participant.
(and give me enough time and I'll remember them) Some argue, quite
plausibly IMO, that the Wesleyan revival is what kept England from a
similar revolution to the French. In the English case then, the fetish
for purity became a socially conservative and healthy measure.
And again: what determined that the drive for purity should arise,
spontaneously and independently, in two extremely different contexts in
two different places?
>...snip...
> > But who says it was not an issue? The interesting question is why was it
> > an issue. Do the actions rise from the ideas? Or are the ideas
> > appropriated to excuse and explain the actions taken for less
> > identifiable, more visceral motives? I tend to the latter view. And
> > please note the tentative nature of my reply here.
> But the ideas are clearly set down in a score of books written before
> the Revolution.
> The events did not occur in an ideological vacuum.
No more than the ideas arose in an historical vacuum.
The ideas themselves are historically determined, and later, the choice
and adoption of them also.
...snip...
> > Your point was about the origin of the terms Left and Right. These terms
> > arose not in the parlements but in the Estates General, or more
> > accurately, the Constituent Assembly which developed from it. And my
> > point was that the terms as used in the French Revolution, while
> > obviously ancestral to the terms used today, meant something different
> > from their modern meanings.
>
> This was the point I was making in my 1992 essay.
OK. I obviously misunderstood your point earlier.
>
> My essay was about the way the term begain the consituent assembly then
> carried through into the parlements
You really should check more thoroughly your information on the history
and role of the parlements. But let's not make an issue of it....
> and then became the normal seating
> arrangement in Parliaments throughout the BRitish world including New
> Zealand - where the Labour reps sit on the left and the coservatives sit
> on the right of the speaker.
In New Zealand, only when the Labour Party is in power, of course. They
swap over when the Nats win power.
> The history of the groups who were defined
> as left and right through this process is fascinating. I wrote the essay
> to demonstrate that right and left had always been a changing pair of
> terms and to argue that while the 'left' tend to have a unifying body of
> thought this is no longer so. For example people describe me as "right"
> but when I hear about right wing skin heads I wonder what on earth I am
> supposed to share of their perverted view of the world.
> Maybe we should revert to mountains and rivers or something.
>
> BUt the reason why equality becomes a destructive idea in any
> "redistributive" revolution is that it cannot deliver the high
> expectations.
I'm not sure why you use "equality" in this way, when the same analysis
might be applied to "liberty" or "fraternity"or any other virtually
meaningless grab-bag political phrase.
Besides, whenever any oppressed people puts all their hopes in a leader
or movement or philosophy of *any* sort they are in for disappointment.
Witness the hope put into the New Right politics here from 1984 onwards
and its inevitable disappointment.
> The French truly believed that after the revolution there would be
> plenty to go round because the riches of the rich would now be in the
> hands of the poor.
> There wasn't enough to go round and revolutions tend to destroy whatever
> wealth there is anyhow.
> We have seen this in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has persauded his black citizens
> that once they lay their hands on all that white farm land there will be
> food a plenty.
> There isn't because the farms are reverting to weeds. A militia member
> actually complained on television that the white farmers whose land had
> been taken wouldn't show them how to farm. He actually thought this was
> "unfair."
> Sharma has a whole chapter on false expectations and the bread rules
> (rationing) etc which inevitably followed and once the plenty does not
> arrive you need to find a scapegoat.
> See France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Fiji, and on and
> on.
And including of course movements where the promiser of utopia has been
decidedly anti egalitarian. Fascist Italy, for example.
Kelvin Wright
says...
> "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> news:3CBF49...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > Kelvin Wright wrote:
> > > In article <3CBE86...@wk.planet.gen.nz>, omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz
> > > says...
> ...
> > It would lean to Marxism in that I believe ideas tend to follow events
> > and not vice versa.
>
>
>
> Surely the reverse is *equally* true?
>
> Ideas follow events and then events spring from those ideas and so on, ad
> infinitum?
>
> A chain of event-idea-event-idea occurs.
flow of history and are shaped by and shape that flow: this is an
historicist perspective. Is it possible that some of the ideas which
rise out of this flow are transhistorical: ie ultimately and permanently
true or are the postmodernists right in saying that all ideas are
contextual and have no meaning outside of their immediate context?
> Wow! almost sounds like a
> scientific process of theory-test-theory-test, doesn't it?
>
> History as education. What a novel thought, that history has something to
> teach us about reality!
Of course your perception of that reality is historically conditioned,
and can only be understood in the context of your history, the
undertanding of which is historically conditioned......... and so on and
so on, until you follow the nested loop of perceptions and their
contexts up your own fundamental orifice. This is postmodernism. The
recognition that the particulars of history may not be merely
provisional but reveal continuous and enduring truth... now there's an
interesting notion.
>
>
>
> > BUt how can you you say this of the FRench
> > Revolution?
>
>
>
> Because it should be obvious to anyone not "committed to an ideology" (or
> ideological approach) that many idea-event-idea-event chains were
> inextricably interwoven in the French Revolution. To unravel them all
> analytically one would have to know the thoughts and actions of every
> individual involved!
>
> But one *can* and perhaps should examine both the major events *and* the
> major ideas that drove the revolution from its beginnings in the corrupt
> elite/impoverished poor to its persistence today in French politics.
>
> And recognise that *both* are significant and useful in gaining some
> understanding, and that discarding either out of ideological commitment to
> some notion of how history necessarily must evolve is hardly sensible.
>
> A plague on both your houses.
No, not a bad little synopsis of the historicist perspective. But I
thought you were a libertarian, and therefore an objectivist. Ce n'ést
pas?
Kelvin Wright
says...
You really must resist this persistent temptation to universalising,
Owen. My position is that the concept of Equality was not a deciding
factor in the development and shape of the French revolution. I have
said several times that ideas did play a part in that revolution, and
have not mentioned others, except in passing. In other contexts it may
well be crucial. I am further, very suspicious of positions, such as the
one implied in the quote which started this thread that revolutions
based on equality will always have certain outcomes, while those based
on freedom will have others.
> If so how do religions have any influence.
> And is Darwinism a non event with no influence on human behaviour or
> action?
> Weird stuff.
Indeed it is, which is, I suppose why neither I nor anybody in my
acquaintance believes such a thing.
Brian Dooley
>Brian Dooley wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:58:22 +1200, "Denver Fletcher"
>> <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >"Brian Dooley" <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>> >news:0h0nbuonns5kc8r5b...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> And another thing you can be sure of is that the Terror, which is
>> >> dated roughly April 1793 to July 1974 (during which time the
>> >> young republic was faced with invasion from without and treason
>> >> from within), was an attempt at protecting the Revolution from
>> >> its enemies, not an attempt to force 'equality' on anyone.
>> >
>> >
>> >I think that may be an over simplification,
>>
>> You would.
>>
>> >in that there are always people
>> >willing and ready to take ruthless advantage of such things, but I take
>> >your point.
>> >
>> You should.
>>
>> In the words of Rouget de Lisle:
>>
>> Allons enfants de la patrie,
>> Le jour de gloire est arrive...
>> Contre nous de la tyrannie
>> L'etandard sanglant est leve
>> Entendez-vous dans nos campagnes
>> Mugir ces feroces soldats?
>> Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras
>> Egorger vos fils, vos compagnes.
>>
>> (All together, nah)
>>
>> Aux armes, citoyens!
>> Formez vos bataillons!
>> Marchons! Marchons! Qu'un sang impur
>> Abreuve nos sillons!
>>
>> And he should have known since he wrote it at Strasbourg when a
>> member of the Army of the Rhine in 1792.
>>
>> Note the date and the reference to cutting of throats.
>And the cutting of throats of the aristocrats was one way of forcing
>equality. Both in height and in rank.
Two things,Owen.
The date is 1792, the Terror didn't start until 1793, and it
started after war broke out between Austria/Prussia and France
and foreign troops had already entered France and several battles
had been fought - with mixed results. Those which were won were
won by the kind of desperate courage which results in rapid
promotion or an early death. Those which were lost were often the
result of incompetence or treachery on the part of an officer
corps which would have been glad to see the Revolution fail.
The cutting of throats refers to the wives and children of the
French by the 'ferocious soldiers' of the external enemy, not to
the throats of the aristos.
And since I can see little point in repeating what both Kelvin
and Owen have said I shall close my contribution to the thread by
quoting from the only American source I have:
[The French Revolution] was generated by a vast complex of
causes, central among which were the corrupt and authoritarian
character of the 'ancien regime', extortionate taxation of the
peasantry, impoverishment of the workers, the intellectual
ferment of the 'Age of Enlightenment', the example of the
American Revolution, and the determination of the bourgoisie to
supplant the nobility and the clergy as the custodians of
political power.
I invite you to compare it with my swift once-over-lightly, which
was dredged up from memories of School Certificate about 55 years
ago, with never a Karl Marx in sight.
I also observe that it was the fish-wives of Paris who marched on
Versailles and encouraged their menfolk with word and gesture at
the fall of the Bastille, with never an intellectual in sight.
Ideas have their place in the scheme of things, and are highly
thought of by those whose business it is to have them, but the
ideas which won the Battle of Valmy were really quite simple, as
befits simple men.
Denver Fletcher
> Denver Fletcher wrote:
> > "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> > news:3CBF49...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > > Kelvin Wright wrote:
> > > > In article <3CBE86...@wk.planet.gen.nz>,
omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz
> > > > says...
> > ...
> > understanding, and that discarding either out of ideological commitment
to
> > some notion of how history necessarily must evolve is hardly sensible.
> >
> > A plague on both your houses.
> I am not sure why I deserve the plague. I have never denied the
> importance of action - and indeed my training has been all about
> choosing from the wide range of analytical approaches now available. We
> have Marxist analysis (see Barrington Moore Lord and Peasant etc),
> economic analysis (Adam Smith, Friedman), Popperian analysis and
> particularly his Open society/tribal model, and Berlin analaysis
> (enlightenment/romantisism) and then there is behavioural analysis and
> so on and so on.
> I must say I was surprised by the vehemence of the argument mounted by
> Dooley and Wright that ideas do not count.
> If so how do religions have any influence.
> And is Darwinism a non event with no influence on human behaviour or
> action?
> Weird stuff.
Indeed.
(It was just the most apt quote that came to mind. No offense intended to
either side, but it related more to the "you know nothing!", "no, *you*
know nothing!" that the thread had previously degenerated to. For your part
in that, you do deserve the plague. IMO, of course.)
Denver Fletcher
> In article <xhJv8.237$2N4....@news02.tsnz.net>, den...@paradise.net.nz
> says...
> > "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> > news:3CBF49...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > > Kelvin Wright wrote:
> > > > In article <3CBE86...@wk.planet.gen.nz>,
omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz
> > > > says...
> > ...
>
> No, not a bad little synopsis of the historicist perspective. But I
> thought you were a libertarian, and therefore an objectivist. Ce n'ést
> pas?
I don't know about art, but I know what I like.
Typically, what I like (and protestations of others hereabouts to the
contrary notwithstanding) is pretty plain good sense.
I'm not sure that being libertarian necessarily implies being objectivist.
I have some plain good sense objections to some objectivist argumentations.
For example, I think that they simply remove the argument from the realm of
conclusions to premises, but they delude themselves that this means they
necessarily win all arguments.
A common fallacy, but one they, if they really believed in their own
philosophy, should have been immune to, no?
Denver Fletcher
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:41:49 +1300, Owen McShane
> <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
> >Brian Dooley wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:58:22 +1200, "Denver Fletcher"
> >> <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >> >"Brian Dooley" <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> >> >news:0h0nbuonns5kc8r5b...@4ax.com...
> [The French Revolution] was generated by a vast complex of
> causes, central among which were the corrupt and authoritarian
> character of the 'ancien regime', extortionate taxation of the
> peasantry, impoverishment of the workers, the intellectual
> ferment of the 'Age of Enlightenment', the example of the
> American Revolution, and the determination of the bourgoisie to
> supplant the nobility and the clergy as the custodians of
> political power.
>
> I invite you to compare it with my swift once-over-lightly, which
> was dredged up from memories of School Certificate about 55 years
> ago, with never a Karl Marx in sight.
>
> I also observe that it was the fish-wives of Paris who marched on
> Versailles and encouraged their menfolk with word and gesture at
> the fall of the Bastille, with never an intellectual in sight.
>
> Ideas have their place in the scheme of things, and are highly
> thought of by those whose business it is to have them, but the
> ideas which won the Battle of Valmy were really quite simple, as
> befits simple men.
Thanks for that Brian.
I think that's the most sensible post of yours I've yet seen.
Owen McShane
> says...
> > Kelvin Wright wrote:
> > > > Kelvin asked why I pointed out that I had actualy read most of Marx,
> > > > because he had not mentioned Marx. But his and Doooley's analysis of the
> > > > causes of the French Revolution are pure Marxist analysis - based on
> > > > class conflicts rather than individuals and their ideas.
> > > I don't think so. I can't speak for Brian, obviously, but my analysis of
> > > the revolution is not primarily based on class, although class conflict
> > > obviously had a lot to do with it. If I wanted to classify my analysis
> > > of this event I would call it historicist.
> >
> > Popper points out that historicism is essentially Marxist - and he wrote
> > that in Christchurch.
>
> greatest among us can say some *really* dumb things.
> I suppose with the poor guy being in Christchurch, he may have said this
> after a fairly heavy night on the turps, and who can blame him?
20th century's leading philospher (and certainly one of the most
influential) to the dustbin of dumb drunks.
I thought you might complain that he actually made this point in his
seminal work "The Poverty of Historicism" which he wrote while still in
Austria. However, he restates the argument in "The Open Society and its
Enemies" volume 1 on page 164.
But first given that you think this was the outcome of some drunken
torpor try the Oxford Dictionary definition of historicism 1 "The theory
that social and cultural phenomena are determined by history "2 The
belief that historical events are governed by laws." 3. "The tendency to
regard historical development as the most basic aspect of human
existence."
It is hard to read Marx and not accept that he was the prime example of
the historicist and promoted the pseudo science of historicism which
Popper argued was fatlly flawed in "The Poverty .. " because we cannot
predict future knowledge and hence cannot predict the future course of
social development.
I do not see how anyone can read Marx or even be aware of his theories
without accepting that he "Believed that historical events are governed
by laws".
Now while in Christchurch Popper wrote his great work "The Open Society
and its Enemies" and on p164 Vol 1 wrote:
"In arguing against Utopianism, Marx condemns in fact all social
engineering - a point which is rarely understood. He denounces the
faith in a rational planning of social instititions as altogether
unrealistic, since society must grow according to the laws of history
and not according to our rational plans. All we can do, he asserts, is
lesson the birth pangs of the historical process."
NOt bad for a drunk?
Having dealt with the Enlightenment belief that we could plan anything
we set our minds to, Popper then introduces the Romantic thread long
before Berlin with:
""This sweep, this extreme radicalism of the Platonic approach (and of
the Marxian as well) is, I believe, connected with its aestheticism ie
with the desire to build a world which not only a little better and more
rational than ours, but which is free from all its ugliness; not a crazy
quilt, an old garment bafly patched, but an entirely new gown, a really
beautiful new world"
Not bad again. And remember he actually learned English from scratch so
that he could write in English while in New Zealand avoiding the Nazi
terror.
Now, to be charitable I suspect that you have some other understanding
of the meaning of the word historicism. But in this case you have to
deal both with Popper and the Oxford English dictionary. I dont think
they were all suffering from a night on the turps and the isolation of
Christchurch.
As a matter of fact (or I should say my opinion) his stay in
Christchurch was essential to the development of "The Open Society" but
the local influence had to be written out of the text in favour of
Athens and Sparta because the Europeans had little knowledge of the
Maori/Anglo relationship in New Zealand.
The real story would make a great play.
> > It would lean to Marxism in that I believe ideas tend to follow events
> > and not vice versa. BUt how can you you say this of the FRench
> > Revolution? - which followed the American Revolution and certainly its
> > processes were inspired by Paine's Rights of Man.
> > I concede that France was ripe for Revolution - but the form of the
> > Revolution was driven by a mix of ideas from Scotland, America and
> > France (the enlightenment end of it) and from Germany (The Romantic end
> > of it).
>
> What factors determined which ideas, out of the scores, perhaps hundreds
> available to the revolutionaries, were formative?
> >
> ...snip...
> >
> > A revolution of some sort was bound to happen. But the form it took was
> > driven by the ideas of the time. Russia was due for a revolution but the
> > form it took was driven by a combination of ideas and some strong
> > leaders - ruthless is a better word.
>
> Exactly. But I would go further. The ideas adopted by the
> revolutionaries, and the sorts of men who attained leadership was
> decided by social/political/economic forces outside the control of and
> barely discernible to the revolutionaries.
> >
> ...snip...
> >
> > Well, I now have opened one of my fat books (I'm not sure why - I am
> > damned if I do it seems and damned if I don't.) Sharma "Citizens" page
> > 805.
> > "Purity became a political fetish"
> > (Me: There is a truly dangerous idea. Witneses the Taleban and Nazi
> > Germany)
> > "Following a proposal by Merlin de Thionville, the Jacobins initiated a
> > labourious self-scrutiny in which each member aswered the questions "How
> > much were you worth in 1789; how much are you worth now and if your
> > aware worth more how did you come buy it?"
>
> Interesting. This is very similar to the self examination which took
> place in the class meetings of the early Methodists - wwhich were, of
> course, taking place across the English channel at precisely the same
> time. *Very* similasr questions were asked weekly of each participant.
> (and give me enough time and I'll remember them) Some argue, quite
> plausibly IMO, that the Wesleyan revival is what kept England from a
> similar revolution to the French. In the English case then, the fetish
> for purity became a socially conservative and healthy measure.
The Methodists were in quite a different "power relationship" to the
Jacobins, and for this reason you may be right.
> And again: what determined that the drive for purity should arise,
> spontaneously and independently, in two extremely different contexts in
> two different places?
> >...snip...
> > > But who says it was not an issue? The interesting question is why was it
> > > an issue. Do the actions rise from the ideas? Or are the ideas
> > > appropriated to excuse and explain the actions taken for less
> > > identifiable, more visceral motives? I tend to the latter view. And
> > > please note the tentative nature of my reply here.
> > But the ideas are clearly set down in a score of books written before
> > the Revolution.
> > The events did not occur in an ideological vacuum.
>
> No more than the ideas arose in an historical vacuum.
>
> The ideas themselves are historically determined, and later, the choice
> and adoption of them also.
A true historicist. WE have all been so steeped in Marxist theory that
we are often unaware of it. Certainly Dooley's School C paper set a
classic Marxist question it would appear. Again there is nothing wrong
with such analysis as long as we know its weaknesses as well as its
strength. BUt Marx's historicism is as much pseudo science as Freuds
theory - as Popper demonstrates so ably.
Historicism is a totally failed theory (or ideology) because it has been
so effectively refuted both in practice and in theory.
> ...snip...
>
> > > Your point was about the origin of the terms Left and Right. These terms
> > > arose not in the parlements but in the Estates General, or more
> > > accurately, the Constituent Assembly which developed from it. And my
> > > point was that the terms as used in the French Revolution, while
> > > obviously ancestral to the terms used today, meant something different
> > > from their modern meanings.
> >
> > This was the point I was making in my 1992 essay.
>
> OK. I obviously misunderstood your point earlier.
> >
> > My essay was about the way the term begain the consituent assembly then
> > carried through into the parlements
> You really should check more thoroughly your information on the history
> and role of the parlements. But let's not make an issue of it....
> > and then became the normal seating
> > arrangement in Parliaments throughout the BRitish world including New
> > Zealand - where the Labour reps sit on the left and the coservatives sit
> > on the right of the speaker.
> In New Zealand, only when the Labour Party is in power, of course. They
> swap over when the Nats win power.
> > The history of the groups who were defined
> > as left and right through this process is fascinating. I wrote the essay
> > to demonstrate that right and left had always been a changing pair of
> > terms and to argue that while the 'left' tend to have a unifying body of
> > thought this is no longer so. For example people describe me as "right"
> > but when I hear about right wing skin heads I wonder what on earth I am
> > supposed to share of their perverted view of the world.
> > Maybe we should revert to mountains and rivers or something.
> >
> > BUt the reason why equality becomes a destructive idea in any
> > "redistributive" revolution is that it cannot deliver the high
> > expectations.
>
> I'm not sure why you use "equality" in this way, when the same analysis
> might be applied to "liberty" or "fraternity"or any other virtually
> meaningless grab-bag political phrase.
Revolutions in the name of Liberty or Freedom do not promise to make
everyone rich by spreading around the wealth of the wealthy. Hence they
raise no false expectations and hence are not so prone to failure and
hence do not generate the need for scapegoats.
Not a remarkable theory - after all it is the lesson of the twentieth
century.
> Besides, whenever any oppressed people puts all their hopes in a leader
> or movement or philosophy of *any* sort they are in for disappointment.
> Witness the hope put into the New Right politics here from 1984 onwards
> and its inevitable disappointment.
> > The French truly believed that after the revolution there would be
> > plenty to go round because the riches of the rich would now be in the
> > hands of the poor.
> > There wasn't enough to go round and revolutions tend to destroy whatever
> > wealth there is anyhow.
> > We have seen this in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has persauded his black citizens
> > that once they lay their hands on all that white farm land there will be
> > food a plenty.
> > There isn't because the farms are reverting to weeds. A militia member
> > actually complained on television that the white farmers whose land had
> > been taken wouldn't show them how to farm. He actually thought this was
> > "unfair."
> > Sharma has a whole chapter on false expectations and the bread rules
> > (rationing) etc which inevitably followed and once the plenty does not
> > arrive you need to find a scapegoat.
> > See France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Fiji, and on and
> > on.
>
> And including of course movements where the promiser of utopia has been
> decidedly anti egalitarian. Fascist Italy, for example.
Fascism is not 'econocentric" and normally does not promise economic
equality - fascism normaly focuses on matters of racial and cultural
purity, the attack on reason and promotes the strength of the nation
state and that all should work and sacrifice to make the state rich and
strong.
ßuch visions are not normally included in the rag bag of "Utopias" - but
I would like to know if any fascit leaders have promoted "utopia"
because the similarities between fascism and socialism interest me and
this is one area where I believed they differed.
Maybe I am wrong and have missed something.
So I would genuinely like to know of your examples.
Brian Dooley
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:45:16 +1300, Owen McShane
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
snip---
>I must say I was surprised by the vehemence of the argument mounted by
>Dooley and Wright that ideas do not count.
Vehamence, Owen?
Have you been into the cocktail cabinet again?
Brian Dooley
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:37:02 +1200, Kelvin Wright
<k...@zn.ten.raelc> wrote:
>You really must resist this persistent temptation to universalising,
>Owen. My position is that the concept of Equality was not a deciding
>factor in the development and shape of the French revolution. I have
>said several times that ideas did play a part in that revolution, and
>have not mentioned others, except in passing. In other contexts it may
>well be crucial. I am further, very suspicious of positions, such as the
>one implied in the quote which started this thread that revolutions
>based on equality will always have certain outcomes, while those based
>on
Very close to what I think.
I see no problems with equality (of a sort) co-existing with
freedom (of a sort), and the idea that they cannot co-exist is
one of the loonier extreme positions adopted by a certain type of
American hired gun.
I'm not so sure that I go along with extreme brotherhood.
Kelvin Wright
says...
Which means that while you could legitimately describe Marxism as
historicist, you have no grounds, necessarily to describe historicism as
marxist.
>
> Now while in Christchurch Popper wrote his great work "The Open Society
> and its Enemies" and on p164 Vol 1 wrote:
> "In arguing against Utopianism, Marx condemns in fact all social
> engineering - a point which is rarely understood. He denounces the
> faith in a rational planning of social instititions as altogether
> unrealistic, since society must grow according to the laws of history
> and not according to our rational plans. All we can do, he asserts, is
> lesson the birth pangs of the historical process."
> NOt bad for a drunk?
Not bad indeed, but where is the bit about historicism being essentially
Marxist? Can't find it? I thought not. Again, you quote Popper to show
that Marx can be thought of as historicist but not VV.
> Having dealt with the Enlightenment belief that we could plan anything
> we set our minds to, Popper then introduces the Romantic thread long
> before Berlin with:
> ""This sweep, this extreme radicalism of the Platonic approach (and of
> the Marxian as well) is, I believe, connected with its aestheticism ie
> with the desire to build a world which not only a little better and more
> rational than ours, but which is free from all its ugliness; not a crazy
> quilt, an old garment bafly patched, but an entirely new gown, a really
> beautiful new world"
>
> Not bad again. And remember he actually learned English from scratch so
> that he could write in English while in New Zealand avoiding the Nazi
> terror.
Indeed, I am impressed. But again, this small exposition on utopianism
has nothing to do with historicism, except for those few and rare
strands of historicism which pretend to utopianismm.
>
> Now, to be charitable I suspect that you have some other understanding
> of the meaning of the word historicism. But in this case you have to
> deal both with Popper and the Oxford English dictionary. I dont think
> they were all suffering from a night on the turps and the isolation of
> Christchurch.
The OED definition is functional, for what it is.
I am aware of Popper's criticisms of historicism. I am aware that by
necessity he was talking of Marx, perhaps of Benedetto Croce, and other
turn of the century historicists, but obviously not of the contemporary
versions of historicism (Roberts Derrida, etc) which has arisen in
reaction to post modernism.
I am not aware that Popper has ever claimed that historicism is Marxist.
And again, I could only imagine that if he said something so stupid, he
was drunk at the time.
> As a matter of fact (or I should say my opinion) his stay in
> Christchurch was essential to the development of "The Open Society" but
> the local influence had to be written out of the text in favour of
> Athens and Sparta because the Europeans had little knowledge of the
> Maori/Anglo relationship in New Zealand.
> The real story would make a great play.
>
>
...snip...
> > The ideas themselves are historically determined, and later, the choice
> > and adoption of them also.
> A true historicist. WE have all been so steeped in Marxist theory that
> we are often unaware of it. Certainly Dooley's School C paper set a
> classic Marxist question it would appear. Again there is nothing wrong
> with such analysis as long as we know its weaknesses as well as its
> strength. BUt Marx's historicism is as much pseudo science as Freuds
> theory - as Popper demonstrates so ably.
and again, the identification of historicism with marxism is spurious.
> Historicism is a totally failed theory (or ideology) because it has been
> so effectively refuted both in practice and in theory.
Whose historicism has been so refuted? I would have thought that some of
the contemporary historicists have hardly had time to be refuted in
theory, let alone in practice.
...snip...
> Revolutions in the name of Liberty or Freedom do not promise to make
> everyone rich by spreading around the wealth of the wealthy. Hence they
> raise no false expectations and hence are not so prone to failure and
> hence do not generate the need for scapegoats.
> Not a remarkable theory - after all it is the lesson of the twentieth
> century.
I don't know of any revolutions that have been occasioned by a concept
of Liberty or freedom, any more than one which has been caused by a
drive for euality. Bit this is a pointless argument that I will not
bother with any more.
The thousand year Reich where prosperity, harmony and peace will be
preserved under the rightful and wise governance of the master race, and
people will live untroubled by the the predations of international Jewry
for example?
Owen McShane
historicist approach is Marxist because it rests on the same assumptions
as Marx. The equation works both ways. Tell me a historicist theory
which does not share the intellectual underpinnings as Marxist theory?
> > Historicism is a totally failed theory (or ideology) because it has been
> > so effectively refuted both in practice and in theory.
>
> Whose historicism has been so refuted? I would have thought that some of
> the contemporary historicists have hardly had time to be refuted in
> theory, let alone in practice.
be refuted in practice - only in theory, and the refutation is robust.
We cannot predict future knowledge - otherwise we would already know it.
most call the Utopian vision - but maybe this can be argued as a
definitional problem.
Hitler and his cronies did not focus too much on redistribution and an
age of equality and peace and laughter which is characteristic of most
Utopian thought.
Quite the opposite -0 they promoted conflict and war. They attached the
jews not so much because they were rich but because they were "impure"
onn Aryan etc. (Of course they were useful economic scapegoats because
of their domination of banking in Europe but the persecution was not
driven or bounded by that activity. It was the race issue which counted.
So I don't see Nazi Germany as a Utopian model - but I suppose you can
define it to be if you chose.
Brian Dooley
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:24:49 +1200, "Denver Fletcher"
<den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
Christ, as good as that, eh?
Denver Fletcher
Not really. ;-)
Yes, actually.
Kelvin Wright
> Kelvin Wright wrote:
...snip...
> > and again, the identification of historicism with marxism is spurious.
> But Marxism is the prime example of historicist theory and the
> historicist approach is Marxist because it rests on the same assumptions
> as Marx. The equation works both ways. Tell me a historicist theory
> which does not share the intellectual underpinnings as Marxist theory?
I'm surprised at you making so fundamental an error of logic. Your
argument above is similar to this one: "But the pear is a prime example
of a fruit, because it possesses all the characteristics of a fruit. The
equation works both ways [ie a pear is a fruit, therefore all fruits
are pears]. Show me a fruit that does not share the essential
characteristics of fruitiness with a pear."
I hardly know where to begin with a response to this. You want me to
start with the first thinker who could arguably be called historicist,
Edmund Burke, and work through to somebody like Ryn, outlining the
theories of the various and diverse thinkers who have used this method
of analysis? I frankly don't have the time or the inclination. Instead,
for a review of the most prominent historicists of the late 20thC I
refer you to David D Roberts, Nothing But History: Reconstruction and
Extremity After Metaphysics. Berkeley: U of C Press 1995.
>
> > > Historicism is a totally failed theory (or ideology) because it has been
> > > so effectively refuted both in practice and in theory.
> >
> > Whose historicism has been so refuted? I would have thought that some of
> > the contemporary historicists have hardly had time to be refuted in
> > theory, let alone in practice.
> Well if you write a historicist argument today then of course it cannot
> be refuted in practice - only in theory, and the refutation is robust.
> We cannot predict future knowledge - otherwise we would already know it.
Historicism does not pretend to predict future knowledge. I can't think
of an historicist thinker who says it does. I can't think where you
would get such an idea from. Not from Popper, I would have thought.
You have fallen prey to another basic problem of logic. You seem to have
defined a Utopia in terms of equality and redistribution of income, so
of course only thinkers who promote these things can be construed as
utopian.
> Quite the opposite -0 they promoted conflict and war. They attached the
> jews not so much because they were rich but because they were "impure"
> onn Aryan etc. (Of course they were useful economic scapegoats because
> of their domination of banking in Europe but the persecution was not
> driven or bounded by that activity. It was the race issue which counted.
> So I don't see Nazi Germany as a Utopian model - but I suppose you can
> define it to be if you chose.
Of course it was utopian in that it worked for the establishment of a
new social order in which the ills of the present order would be
rectified.
>
Owen McShane
>
SNIP
>
> I'm surprised at you making so fundamental an error of logic. Your
> argument above is similar to this one: "But the pear is a prime example
Look, this is not an exchange of learned journal articles - it is a chat
group.
When I said Historicism is Marxist I was talking in the context of this
conversation and assumed we were talking about the Historicism which
Popper was writing about in his famous book. TO be correct in learned
journal terms I should have said "Modern Historicism is Marxist" of "The
dominant historicism of the last century is Marxist" but I thought this
meaning would be taken from the context.
> I hardly know where to begin with a response to this. You want me to
> start with the first thinker who could arguably be called historicist,
> Edmund Burke, and work through to somebody like Ryn, outlining the
> theories of the various and diverse thinkers who have used this method
> of analysis?
The first historicists were Plato and Heraclitus so I am not sure why
you wouls start with Burke. And of course I don't expect you to write a
learned history on non Marxian historicsm. I simply thought the context
made it clear that I was talking about the historicism which caused so
much pain and death during the last century because we were talking
about Marx and Popper.
I frankly don't have the time or the inclination. Instead,
> for a review of the most prominent historicists of the late 20thC I
> refer you to David D Roberts, Nothing But History: Reconstruction and
> Extremity After Metaphysics. Berkeley: U of C Press 1995.
> >
> > > > Historicism is a totally failed theory (or ideology) because it has been
> > > > so effectively refuted both in practice and in theory.
> > >
> > > Whose historicism has been so refuted? I would have thought that some of
> > > the contemporary historicists have hardly had time to be refuted in
> > > theory, let alone in practice.
> > Well if you write a historicist argument today then of course it cannot
> > be refuted in practice - only in theory, and the refutation is robust.
> > We cannot predict future knowledge - otherwise we would already know it.
>
> Historicism does not pretend to predict future knowledge. I can't think
> of an historicist thinker who says it does. I can't think where you
> would get such an idea from. Not from Popper, I would have thought.
Historicists argue that there is a science of history which reveals laws
of history which can then be used to predict the future development of
society. What do you think Marxist Leninism and Engels were all about.
Marxism and historicism do not set out to predict future knowledge but
the fact that we cannot predict future knowledge means that we cannot
use historical laws to predict future social change because future new
knowledge will change our experience and expectations and powers to
change or modify both the physical world and our own behaviour.
As a historicist I thought you would be familiar with "The Poverty of
Historicism".
>
> > > ...snip...
> > >
SNIP
> > >
> > > I don't know of any revolutions that have been occasioned by a concept
> > > of Liberty or freedom, any more than one which has been caused by a
> > > drive for euality.
How about the AMerican Revolution?
NO, not at all. Most Utopians visions are of societies which are good,
benign and peaceful and non violent - and many have argued that the way
to achieve this state is to remove private property and redistribute
wealth. Rousseau is the obvious example with his famous quote about the
peg in the ground.
Hitler's vision was not Utopian in this sense. He promoted violence and
conquest etc.
This is why many argue that the Socialist deaths (which exceed the
fascist deaths) do not count as much because "The socialists meant well"
while the fascists were openly nasty. I am not persuaded that the
victims made much of the disctinction but I can understand (without
sympathising with) the underlying logic which is based on a certain
reality.
> > Quite the opposite -0 they promoted conflict and war. They attached the
> > jews not so much because they were rich but because they were "impure"
> > onn Aryan etc. (Of course they were useful economic scapegoats because
> > of their domination of banking in Europe but the persecution was not
> > driven or bounded by that activity. It was the race issue which counted.
> > So I don't see Nazi Germany as a Utopian model - but I suppose you can
> > define it to be if you chose.
>
> Of course it was utopian in that it worked for the establishment of a
> new social order in which the ills of the present order would be
> rectified.
IF you limit your definition of Utopia to that then the fascist vision
was Utopian. It is not a common definition in my experience. But ...?
Denver Fletcher
> Kelvin Wright wrote:
> SNIP
> > Of course it was utopian in that it worked for the establishment of a
> > new social order in which the ills of the present order would be
> > rectified.
>
> IF you limit your definition of Utopia to that then the fascist vision
> was Utopian. It is not a common definition in my experience. But ...?
If that is the definition then the old Fred Dag song "If I ruled the world
..." is a utopian political vision.
Indeed, if I said I will kill everyone except 6 willing nubile sex slaves
(everyone needs at least one day off a week!) then that also qualifies.
Somehow I think that this discussion merits a definition somewhat more
precise and inherently political.
Kelvin Wright
says...
> Kelvin Wright wrote:
> >
> SNIP
> >
> > I'm surprised at you making so fundamental an error of logic. Your
> > argument above is similar to this one: "But the pear is a prime example
> > of a fruit, because it possesses all the characteristics of a fruit. SNIP
> Look, this is not an exchange of learned journal articles - it is a chat
> group.
> When I said Historicism is Marxist I was talking in the context of this
> conversation and assumed we were talking about the Historicism which
> Popper was writing about in his famous book.
part of the conversation to that point. I think, the starting point was
my mention that my analysis was historicist. I was, therefore, talking
about my own particular brand of historicism, which is most similar, I
suppose, to the historicism of Benedetto Croce
> TO be correct in learned
> journal terms I should have said "Modern Historicism is Marxist" of "The
> dominant historicism of the last century is Marxist" but I thought this
> meaning would be taken from the context.
The statement, even so qualified would still be bullshit, and Popper
never said or implied any such thing.
> > I hardly know where to begin with a response to this. You want me to
> > start with the first thinker who could arguably be called historicist,
> > Edmund Burke, and work through to somebody like Ryn, outlining the
> > theories of the various and diverse thinkers who have used this method
> > of analysis?
>
> The first historicists were Plato and Heraclitus
Ahhhh yes... those two well known Marxists....
> so I am not sure why
> you wouls start with Burke.
Because in the analysis of historicism that is where people often start.
But, I bow to your superior knowledge. If you want to include Plato,
fire right ahead.
> And of course I don't expect you to write a
> learned history on non Marxian historicsm. I simply thought the context
> made it clear that I was talking about the historicism which caused so
> much pain and death during the last century because we were talking
> about Marx and Popper.
Historicism is a method of enquiry. It is not a political philosophy or
theory, although political theories can of course be based on an
historicist analysis. It is absurd to say that historicism caused
suffering or pain or death.
> I frankly don't have the time or the inclination. Instead,
> > for a review of the most prominent historicists of the late 20thC I
> > refer you to David D Roberts, Nothing But History: Reconstruction and
> > Extremity After Metaphysics. Berkeley: U of C Press 1995.
> > >
> > > > > Historicism is a totally failed theory (or ideology) because it has been
> > > > > so effectively refuted both in practice and in theory.
> > > >
> > > > Whose historicism has been so refuted? I would have thought that some of
> > > > the contemporary historicists have hardly had time to be refuted in
> > > > theory, let alone in practice.
> > > Well if you write a historicist argument today then of course it cannot
> > > be refuted in practice - only in theory, and the refutation is robust.
> > > We cannot predict future knowledge - otherwise we would already know it.
> >
> > Historicism does not pretend to predict future knowledge. I can't think
> > of an historicist thinker who says it does. I can't think where you
> > would get such an idea from. Not from Popper, I would have thought.
> Historicists argue that there is a science of history which reveals laws
> of history which can then be used to predict the future development of
> society.
Who are you thinking of here? You are not describing any contemporary
historicist thinkers I am familiar with. More commonly now, historicism
appeals because it circumvents the paralysis brought about by
postmodernism. Postmodernist analysis in it's insistence that all
observation is contextual renders all previous philosophy impotent.All
events are historically determined , and the observation of them is
subjective and there can be no absolutes. Even the observation that
there is no absolutes is contextually determined and ultimately
meaningless. In the face of postmodernism all theories, including
postmodernism itself, disappear in a circular swirl of contextuality.
Historicism short circuits this in the observation that there is at
least one absolute, that is the passage of history of which all events,
including both the events themselves and the observation of those events
are part. Of course the observation of history is contextual, but there
is now the certainty that behind that observation there is a continuing
reality.
To any serious historicist the attempt to formulate laws of history and
to use them to predict the future is recognised for what it is:
soothsaying.
> What do you think Marxist Leninism and Engels were all about.
Certainly not trying to find a way around the deadlock of postmodernism.
> Marxism and historicism do not set out to predict future knowledge but
> the fact that we cannot predict future knowledge means that we cannot
> use historical laws to predict future social change because future new
> knowledge will change our experience and expectations and powers to
> change or modify both the physical world and our own behaviour.
> As a historicist I thought you would be familiar with "The Poverty of
> Historicism".
> > > >
> > > > I don't know of any revolutions that have been occasioned by a concept
> > > > of Liberty or freedom, any more than one which has been caused by a
> > > > drive for euality.
>
> How about the AMerican Revolution?
We're into the same fruitless argument that we had about the French
revolution. You will quote various thinkers who influenced the leaders
of the revolution. I will quote the seven years war, the resulting load
of taxation applied by the British, the anti establishmentarianism of
the various protestant colonies (most of them far more egalitarian than
the French, BTW) and so forth. I don't want to go round that particular
mulberry bush again.
But in short, no I don't believe the American revolution was caused by
a concept of freedom, and yes, I recognise that you will disagree with
me.
>
> Bit this is a pointless argument that I will not
> > > > bother with any more.
...snip...
> > You have fallen prey to another basic problem of logic. You seem to have
> > defined a Utopia in terms of equality and redistribution of income, so
> > of course only thinkers who promote these things can be construed as
> > utopian.
> NO, not at all. Most Utopians visions are of societies which are good,
> benign and peaceful and non violent -
such as the thousand year Reich...
> and many have argued that the way
> to achieve this state is to remove private property and redistribute
> wealth. Rousseau is the obvious example with his famous quote about the
> peg in the ground.
> Hitler's vision was not Utopian in this sense. He promoted violence and
> conquest etc.
> This is why many argue that the Socialist deaths (which exceed the
> fascist deaths) do not count as much because "The socialists meant well"
> while the fascists were openly nasty.
I've never met anybody who argued that way, but I suppose some do. there
are some pillocks around.
> I am not persuaded that the
> victims made much of the disctinction but I can understand (without
> sympathising with) the underlying logic which is based on a certain
> reality.
I think the vast bulk of the socialist deaths were caused by things
other than socialism. Terror as an instrument of control, for example,
and sheer madness and megalomania on the part of Stalin. And don't
interpret this as a defence of either socialism or Stalin, as I have no
wish to defend either.
> > > Quite the opposite -0 they promoted conflict and war. They attached the
> > > jews not so much because they were rich but because they were "impure"
> > > onn Aryan etc. (Of course they were useful economic scapegoats because
> > > of their domination of banking in Europe but the persecution was not
> > > driven or bounded by that activity. It was the race issue which counted.
> > > So I don't see Nazi Germany as a Utopian model - but I suppose you can
> > > define it to be if you chose.
> >
> > Of course it was utopian in that it worked for the establishment of a
> > new social order in which the ills of the present order would be
> > rectified.
>
> IF you limit your definition of Utopia to that then the fascist vision
> was Utopian. It is not a common definition in my experience. But ...?
Utopia: ....Any ideal community or state; an ideally perfect social and
political system, usually with the implication that such is impossible
of realisation.... (Webster)
I think you will find my definition well supported and very common.
Kelvin Wright
den...@paradise.net.nz says...
> "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> news:3CC4A2...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > Kelvin Wright wrote:
> > SNIP
> > > Of course it was utopian in that it worked for the establishment of a
> > > new social order in which the ills of the present order would be
> > > rectified.
> >
> > IF you limit your definition of Utopia to that then the fascist vision
> > was Utopian. It is not a common definition in my experience. But ...?
>
>
> If that is the definition then the old Fred Dag song "If I ruled the world
> ..." is a utopian political vision.
No it's a joke. Most people can make that distinction.
>
> Indeed, if I said I will kill everyone except 6 willing nubile sex slaves
> (everyone needs at least one day off a week!) then that also qualifies.
Well, you'd keep the girls busy for oh, I'd say, about 2 minutes and
then they'd all get bored and wander off. Some Utopia.
> Somehow I think that this discussion merits a definition somewhat more
> precise and inherently political.
I think the definition as commonly used is precise enough: some
imaginary perfect state.
The thought has occured to me though, that all political systems are to
some extent utopian. All try to bring about some vision of a better,
more perfect society than the one we have whether that utopia consists
of a freer, more individualistic, less regulated, less taxed society or
an ordered, wisely regulated society operating for the better
functioning of all its members. Is this why all politics of any
persuasion leads ultimately to disillusionment and disappointment?
Denver Fletcher
> In article <hI2x8.1091$2N4.1...@news02.tsnz.net>,
> den...@paradise.net.nz says...
> > "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> > news:3CC4A2...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > > Kelvin Wright wrote:
> > > SNIP
> imaginary perfect state.
Maybe so, but Hitler (as the example used previously, don't Godwin me)
didn't promise peace and properity for everyone, just that the Germans
would be the biggest mofo's in the valley, which *is* rather different from
what most people think of as Utopia.
Isn't it?
> The thought has occured to me though, that all political systems are to
> some extent utopian. All try to bring about some vision of a better,
> more perfect society than the one we have whether that utopia consists
> of a freer, more individualistic, less regulated, less taxed society or
> an ordered, wisely regulated society operating for the better
> functioning of all its members. Is this why all politics of any
> persuasion leads ultimately to disillusionment and disappointment?
Probably.
But again, a Libertarian (for ezample) doesn't promise that everyone will
become happy under their political philosophy, only that it is the one that
gives everyone the most equal opportunity to pursue their own happiness. It
is decidedly different from those philosopies that promise equality of
outcomes, even at the minimum.
I assume that this difference is what Owen was getting at.
Kelvin Wright
...snip...
> > Historicism does not pretend to predict future knowledge. I can't think
> > of an historicist thinker who says it does. I can't think where you
> > would get such an idea from. Not from Popper, I would have thought.
> Historicists argue that there is a science of history which reveals laws
> of history which can then be used to predict the future development of
> society.
In the quote which started all this Milton Friedman was expounding a
philosophy of history: that societies oriented to freedom were both free
and equal, and those oriented to equality were neither. He was using
this philosophy to comment on the probable successs of competing
economic models, ie to predict the future development of society. By
your own definition of historicism, then, Milton Friedman is historicist
and, by your logic, Marxist. Whatever his nomenclature, Popper's
criticism applies to him if to anybody.
...snip...
Daniel Silva
Game, set and match. Better luck next time, Kelvin.
Kelvin Wright
dan...@NOSPAMsilva.co.nz says...
I am indeed gratified that you think Owen's position is so weak that you
feel obliged to throw in the towel on his behalf. But don't you think it
might look better if you waited until he had actually replied before
declaring him the winner?
Daniel Silva
> > Game, set and match. Better luck next time, Kelvin.
>
> I am indeed gratified that you think Owen's position is so weak that you
> feel obliged to throw in the towel on his behalf. But don't you think it
> might look better if you waited until he had actually replied before
> declaring him the winner?
No need. Your "unforced error" was of such magnitude that the result is
apparent for all to see.
Kelvin Wright
dan...@NOSPAMsilva.co.nz says...
Humour me, do. Explain my unforced error.
Owen McShane
historicist in the manner of Plato or Marx.
Daniel Silva
Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum was just a tad too absurd.
Kelvin Wright
says...
> Kelvin Wright wrote:
> >
> > In article <aKmx8.375$lA2....@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> > dan...@NOSPAMsilva.co.nz says...
> > > "Kelvin Wright" <k...@zn.ten.raelc> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1730bd3de...@news.clear.net.nz...
> > >
> > > > > Game, set and match. Better luck next time, Kelvin.
> > > >
> > > > I am indeed gratified that you think Owen's position is so weak that you
> > > > feel obliged to throw in the towel on his behalf. But don't you think it
> > > > might look better if you waited until he had actually replied before
> > > > declaring him the winner?
> > >
> > > No need. Your "unforced error" was of such magnitude that the result is
> > > apparent for all to see.
> >
> > Humour me, do. Explain my unforced error.
> It's quite simple - no one who advocates freedom of choice can be a
> historicist in the manner of Plato or Marx.
*Exactly* my point. The application of your own definition and reasoning
to Friedman undermines both your definition of historicsm and your claim
that historicism = marxism. I thought you would have recognised a
reductio ad absurdum as blatant as this one. Never mind.
I am at a conference next week and still have some work to do on my
paper. So I will absent myself from this discussion. Thanks. It's been
fun.
Owen McShane
I am intrigued to learn that historicism in new drag is now presented as
the antidote to postmodernism. But I have to say that, never having been
infected with that mind rotting disease, I have little interest in the
cure.
--