Why do revolutions always end with tyranny replaced by tyranny?
That's not how the french revolution ended
>>471538
For every one that ended up fucking up I can name one that did the opposite, or at least didn't replace a tyrant with another. The one in my country included.
>>471538
>He fell for the tyranny meme
Oh boy
>>471551
>That's not how the french revolution ended
It did end in tyranny. At least until Nappy saved the day.
>>471538
They don't, but now that you mention it every single government will turn tyrannical given enough time.
Although I guess the opposite is also true...Nah, not really the opposite isn't true, tyrannical governments don't just up and turn good they need revolutions and junk.
It's not that revolutions always replace Tyranny with Tyranny, it's that some revolutions are for the explicit purpose of setting up a tyrannical government (Communist revolutions, the French Revolution, the Iranian revolution against the Shah, etc). They do not setup tyrannies because they are revolutionary, but rather there is a revolution to setup a tyranny.
The United States revolutionary war, the Texas revolution, the Indian revolution against Great Britain, the Irish independence movement, the Young Turks, and the Spanish revolution (1868, and arguably also 1936) are all revolutions that either deposed a tyranny or caused a shift to a less tyrannical state.
If you're talking about the Communist "hurr durr only Communism is revolutionary" idea of revolution then yes, every revolution results in tyranny as Communism is inherently tyrannical.
>>471538
No, sometimes come an oligarchy.
When you disrupt communal systems of meaning(mainly religion) and replace it with shallow modern ideology people generally turn pathological. People are not meant to be ripped from their systems of meaning suddenly and stuffed in a shallow ideological box. The moral systems that the various religions and cultures developed are well suited for the complex and hectic lives of modern people.
The American revolution was NOT a radical ideological paradigm shift but rather built from American, English, French, and Greek systems.
>>471764
>thinking cultures are organisms with rights and not apparatuses of class domination
There's a reason that religious revivalism is important among the upper crust capitalists of China after they established their dominance and why religion was despised during the revolutionary period. The reaction is in fact the only pathological movement. After all, these "moral systems" are all fantasy.
>>471538
because intelligent rich people don't like your petty morals and want to eat/fuck children as easily as possible
>>471945
To be clear:
>was despised [by the vast majority of people, especially the peasantry and working class]
The upper and middle classes loved TCR for very obvious reasons, and they were sure to cry about it when they "fled" into Western arms.
>>471538
Tyranny isn't necessarily a bad thing (please unload your baggage here) and it's a logical choice of governance during revolutionary periods that are under constant threat.
>>471764
There's no way we can/want to go back to religious thinking when there's so much evidence against the existence of gods
We'll have to replace it with something else
>>471736
>Communist revolutions, the French Revolution, the Iranian revolution against the Shah
Except all of the above set out to create popular republics. To say that "communists want to establish a tyrannical government" ignores the fact that, prior to the Bolsheviks ruining it, the country was meant to be structured so as to be run directly by workers councils. Power later consolidated thanks to the efforts of Trotsky, Stalin, and the like. French Revolution actually did manage to make its republic, but was stopped before the terror could fully consume itself. The Iranian Revolution had a number of groups that were looking to replace the monarchy, and the radical theocrats only gained prominence midway.
As for your other examples, the American Revolution didn't even really change the holders of power, only the degree of autonomy the ruling class held and the base of legitimacy those people held. Texas Revolution likewise only traded Mexican dominance for US dominance. Indian Revolution could barely be considered a Revolution considering GB basically just abandoned ship despite being capable of quelling resistance. Irish Revolution, while it did turn out alright, involved copious amounts of backstabbing. Turkish Revolution was also decent... if you were Turkish. Everyone else faced genocide of some degree. Spanish Revolutions were good, though the 1936 one was dominated by leftist coalitions that DIDNT want tyranny as you assert (though that's debatable for the later Stalinist faction).
Because the external problem is a symptom of the inner one
>>471986
>ignores the fact that, prior to the Bolsheviks ruining it, the country was meant to be structured so as to be run directly by workers councils.
And how is a country run by "workers councils" not tyrannical?
Because they don't necessarily take issue with the rule, but instead with the ruler, in that it isn't them.
I'd guess you look at Tyranny in a new light when you get to be the Tyrant.
>>471538
They don't always.
>>471945
>thinking cultures are organisms with rights and not apparatuses of class domination
They're not organisms with rights, they're collective sources of shared meaning for the people in those cultures. These things exist for important reasons
Get used to the idea that "class domination" exists as humans have been living in dominance structures since the dawn of humanity and even before our decent from the trees millions of years ago. It's the way humans are, from the very base of our being.
>>471980
>There's no way we can/want to go back to religious thinking when there's so much evidence against the existence of gods
What's the evidence for gods nonexistence?
>>472048
>humans have been living in dominance structures since the dawn of humanity and even before our decent from the trees millions of years ago.
Busting out an old meme for some undank shitposting
>>472063
Try posting some actual content some time
>>472052
Allow me to play devil's advocate:
1) Every religion has made claims that are unfounded or proven untrue but are claimed to be true and are necessary. Example, the fact that Exodus never happened.
2) To this day god's existence remains unproven.
>>472068
Physician, heal thyself.
>>472080
Who gives a shit what religions say?
Because all governments, democratic or not, are a representation of their people. If the people don't change, it is only a matter of time until somebody similar takes the place of the previous tyrant.
Civilization created by force will die by force, change must come from within.
>>471551
And what happened to people like Robespierre and Oliver Cromwell? Did they die in bed of old age after establishing a revolutionary utopia?
Power tends to be seized by people that want to exercise power. And there's a habit for the new rulers to start by settling all the old scores.
>>471986
Given you've interpreted 'Communist revolutions' to refer singularly to 1917....
Lenin -> dictatorship of the proletariat -> vanguard -> Cheka.
He was a tyrannical cunt from the start.
Btw I'm not the anon you replied to.
>>472004
The same way that democracy is "not" "tyrannical", since it gives power to the majority working class and functions democratically
>>471538
>Why do revolutions always end with tyranny replaced by tyranny?
They don't. This is pretty classic eisegesis.
>So soon as an intellectual imagines a simple order of things, he is serving the growth of Power. For the existing order, here as everywhere, is complex and rests on a whole mass of supports, authorities, sentiments, and adjustments of the most varied kind. If it is sought to make one spring do the work of so many, how strong must be the force of its recoil; or if one pillar must support henceforward what many supported, it must be of the stoutest! Only Power can be that spring or that pillar — and what a Power it must be! Simply because speculative thought tends to neglect the usefulness of a crowd of secondary factors which make for order, it leads inevitably to the reinforcement of the central authority, and never more surely than when it is unsettling every kind of authority, the central included; for authority there must be, and when it rises again it is, inevitably, in the most concentrated form open to it.
Bertrand de Jouvenel, On Power
>>472004
Because the councils would be democratic
>>471551
Yeah sure, ill just hang in there with my neck on the humanitarian guillotine while my property is being burnt and sacked and my wife and children probably being raped. I'll never challenge the ideas for the Robespierre calendar in public again i swear!
>>471538
No it doesn't. The 13 Colonies led a rebellion that created a republican state with no dictatorship.
>american '''''''''''''''''''''''''revolution''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
when will this meme end
>>471538
Because Tyranny is the use of violence and coercion against your fellow man.
From the smallest tyrant ruling over a household, to the greatest of states, the whole of tyranny is the monopoly on violence and it's use.
When you have a political revolution, you have one person or group of persons, who want to claim the absolute right to employ violence on their fellow man. All revolutions, and all political processes, are open attempts to establish a tyranny.
>>472391
Of course the token tanky doesn't see the most tyrannical governments on earth as tyrannical.
>>473097
>not always
>most
Great to see you've taken that remedial reading course.
>>473079
Idktbqhf. On the one hand, it wasn't a complete an overthrow of the existing social order like France, Russia, etc. The day-to-day life of the man on the street didn't change that much; in fact much of the casus belli (especially in New England) was an a feeling that traditional, historical rights were being stripped away, and an attempt to return to the previous status quo. In that respect it's quite similar to the 80 Years War in the Netherlands.
On the other hand, there was a republican sentiment that was genuinely quite radical in comparison with the prevailing form of government in Europe, even if it drew on colonial traditions that had been present for 100+ years and on Anglo-Saxon traditions. I'm thinking of Common Sense, etc. "What then is the American, this new man?" etc.
I'd also point out that the American "Revolution" was a bloody, complicated affair, like many later revolutions. Especially in the Appalachians and backcountry, communities changed sides many times and lead bloody vengance raids on their local enemies.
>>473125
glad to see youre still derailing threads with commie bullshit and arguments over semantics and grammar
imo a contributing factor is that democracy is as much cultural as it is a literal legal framework. Especially in large societies (large being defined as over 1,000 people) where people don't trust or understand each other.
Democracy is not just holding an election. It's holding an election and then having something like 40% of the population accept that they lost without doubt or violence and accepting that the guy they HATE is their rightful ruler. That's not something that happens over night. In fact, it's kind of the opposite mindset you can expect in a revolution.
>>471538
English Bloodless Revolution...
>>473074
The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is still a dictatorship and the American revolution was specifically designed with that dictatorship in mind.
>>473176
>literally communist trash
>gets mad when labeled as such
are you able to form a coherent argument or is "according to marx" and "lol ur stupid" all you can muster?
>>473189
I don't think you know what dictatorship means, senpai. Dominance of the bourgeoisie, sure. But that's not a "dictatorship". Not to mention the point that "bourgeoisie" wasn't even really a meaningful term until into the 19th c.
>>471538
because people who live under tyranny have a good understanding of tyranny and bad understanding of its alternatives
in the end the controlling faction, other political players and the general public all contribute. to make it shit. because shit is what they know.
>>471977
This is a sensible post.
The problems with tyranny begin and end with the sensibilities of the tyrant.
That's why I still think that tyranny, despotism, monarchism, etc, all of these are a better system of government than communism, since the former only requires one person to be virtuous, unlike the latter.
>>473266
>this desu senpai
there has never been a communist state that wasn't tyrannical. plenty of peaceful monarchies and constitutional monarchies
inb4 b-but communism has never been tried irl guise
>>473221
>Dominance of the bourgeoisie, sure. But that's not a "dictatorship".
Of course it is, it's rule of a political entity.
>Not to mention the point that "bourgeoisie" wasn't even really a meaningful term until into the 19th c.
Most, if not all, terminology is necessarily retrospective.
Name one revolution that has replaced tyranny.
>French "revolution"
>Ancien régime allowed for more freedom for the artisans through guild/corporation system
>Several guaranteed liberties not unlike the British system, even for the lowest class
>The term absolute monarchy is a meme that never existed, revolutionary France was more centralized, tyrannic and absolute then the monarchy ever war
>"Russian" "revolution"
>Tsarist Russia had: abolished serfdom, enacted land reforms that meant large land owners were now a minority (1/5 of all land IIRC), saved Austria against savage "revolutionaries", industrializing as excellent rate without the injustice of western capitalism due to the benevolence of the Tsar (PBUH) well on its way to become the strongest nation in the world
Revolutionary is another word for murderer, thief, traitor, degenerate.
>>473189
>applying socialist/Marxist theories developed in the mid 19th century to a revolution in the late 18th century
>injecting your political theories into historical contexts where they weren't realized or were unknown or inaccurate, not in an attempt to better understand history, but to attempt to give better credibility to your ideology
Faggots like you make history a shit discipline to study; you're seeking to get your own thing, whatever it is, out of history rather than seek the truth of what actually happened. History's a whore for you to have your way with, and when you treat it as such the devaluation of history beyond a tool to pleasure yourself and your own ego is rapid and total.
Please fuck off of /his/ and never return.
>>473612
>confusing terminology and common sense meanings
I bet you don't even read the bible for hermeneutics practice.
>>473588
I forgot to add the outcome of the "revolutions"
>French revolution
>Even before the terror: mock trials to eliminate political enemies
>Murder of the king (who was popular amongst the people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At1-Zqrzrw4)
>Genocide of the Vendean
>The massacres of Lyon and other cities
>Killings, killings and more killings
>Conscription that essentially sent to death a million youth to protect the fat salaries or deviant ideologies of corrupt madmen
>Russian revolution
>Sent the country in bloody civil war
>Red terror
>War communism which essentially robbed the peasants
>Famines, gulags
>Holding family members as hostage and other forms of terrorism
>Betrayal of the Kronstadt marines
>Lead to the Soviet Union, which literally was an evil empire, unmatched in history in the scale of its oppression
>>473618
>dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
>American revolution
>explicitly stating that the founding fathers designed the Revolutionary War to deliver them a republic for the bourgeoisie to rule over, presumably at the expense of all others
I didn't confuse terminology at all, you're confusing your ideological terminology for valid historical analysis. Fuck off back to >>>/leftypol/ and never return.
>>473159
I grew out of thinking communism is a good idea when I was 22.
>>473629
"The Senate"
"Jacksonian democracy"
>>471538
What is egypt , what is libya, what are the post soviet states
>>473637
Are you retarded? What is that, your sick comeback? Come on now, anon, in case you're not aware it's the current year.
Heres a better question: Why does your mother perform revolutions round the tyranny of my dick, op?
>>471538
I think it has more to do with a people who do not know how to handle freedom. Gradual steps need to be taken over many, many years so that way people can learn how to handle what they have. So a king is replaced by a dictator, a dictator is replaced by bureaucracy, which is replaced by an elected bureaucracy. People need to be gradually introduced to choice and different opinions. If they get it too quickly, they are more apt to go back to their old ways of governance.
Ex.
>France
Went from a king to a "republic" to back to being a king again.
>Egypt (today)
A dictatorship, to democracy, to military control (near enough to dictatorship in Egypt) and now they are trying again.
>Italy
King, parliament, Dictatorship, parliament.
>Russia
King, parliament, dictator, parliament (elected) w/ a near dictator.
People need to be introduced to choice and compromise.
Because it's a revolution :^)
>>474098
>I think it has more to do with a people who do not know how to handle freedom. Gradual steps need to be taken over many, many years so that way people can learn how to handle what they have.
I agree partially with this, but I also feel that many people don't even WANT "freedom" because it's a two way street - between having "freedom" and being able to pass the buck, most people value the latter more highly.
>>471538
every stage of history is a dictatorship of the classes
>>471551
HEGEL
E
G
E
L
>>471538
Because tyranny is the end result of any kind of human organization.
It's natural human desire to will for more and more power, so democracies will slowly succumb to tyranny, whereas revolutions provide the opportunity for power hungry individuals to seize power quickly. The only way to escape this cycle is to take the route less travelled, to embrace tyranny and mould society into a well oiled machine where each individual is simply a devoted cog in it.
>>473642
lol wut? Egypt has a military dictatorship. Granted, that's better than the Mudslime brotherhood but still.
>>471538
There must always be a king. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
>>473188
>Bloodless revolution
When William left Ireland after decreeing a policy of religious tolerance and freedom the protestant settlers instantly shit all over it and went back to oppressing Catholics for fun. It definitely ended in tyranny.
Because they didn't read my books or at least my wiki page.
t. pareto
>>475903
or to prevent tyranical leaders by having intelligent, cultured and well informed people
>>476597
this, its just nature
>>476636
i'm a retard. what is this t. thing i keep seeing?
>>476949
It's a meme, you dip,
>>474260
Woah, mindblown.
>>471986
>Spanish Revolutions were good, though the 1936 one was dominated by leftist coalitions that DIDNT want tyranny as you assert
What spanish revolutions are you talking about? because the ones during the 19th century were simply our equivalent of liberals and conservatives (of back those days) alternating in power by coup de etats every 5 years or so (is an exageration, don't take it seriously) and what we got in 1936 was a civil war that ended on a right winged fascist catholic dictatorship like the ones from portugal and chile.
>>473588
American Revolution.
>>476949
it's how Finns sign off emails. Finns on kc /int/ used it at the end of their messages to reveal an extra fact about themselves, sometimes a fake one for humorous effect, and others followed suit.
t: knower of memes
>>473629
It's the magic not-God that's behind all of this.
>>471538
the people who are at the top by the end of the revolution are usually generals who lack sufficient administrative skills to restort infrastructure and a standard of living to the country so when people start protesting or revolting the option they think is necessary is to crack down with force
Because violence begets violence. The people you need to win a revolution need to be violent and brutal and when the war is over you're left hoping these people who had virtually uncontested power will just hand it over when all the war taught them says to do otherwise.
>>471538
>Why do revolutions always end with tyranny replaced by tyranny?
Because human civilization is naturally hierarchal. There is always gonna be a relatively small group of people in charge of everybody else. The only exceptions are "frontier societies" where there is still plenty of room to expand, hide, or run away if you don't like how things are going. For the most part, those days are long gone.
>>471704
Maybe you mean it's a cycle?
>>473588
>believing absolute monarchy was free-er than the early USSR or the post revolutionary france
The early USSR was a paragon of direct democracy in the workplace.
The french revolution is the only reason you aren't a serf.
Fucking ebola fags, monarchy and tradition are the crutches of the weak willed and pathetic.
You are quite literally a willing sheep.
>>480012
Nice memes you got here. Too bad they are only communist propaganda masquerading as history.
>>480034
>thinking gramsci would ever agree with you
ohboy.jpg
You are a fucking idiot.
>>472412
Jouvenel also quotes a relevant passage from Pierre Daunou:
>The restoration of the liberties of the individual is for a revolution a vain objective; at no point in its course does it return them. Ambition, greed, hatred, vengeance, the violent or hurtful passions of every kind, lay hold on revolutionary movements; and if, during the long night of disorder in which the victors and the vanquished take turns in being lost and crushed, voices are raised reclaiming order and safety, their advice is held for treacherous or untimely; the perils of the time, which could in fact be cured only by the application of the safeguards of ordinary laws, are made the excuse and banal watchword for welcoming every fresh act of injustice and disorder. For the space of thirty years arbitrary acts of every kind have been multiplied, unavailingly, to the point at which not a single citizen remains who has not, once or more times, suffered from them: unavailing it has been, for the power to commit more goes on being demanded at intervals in the sacred name of public security.
Really, subversives should be lined up and shot before they get too much power and do too much damage. That's something that revolutionaries themselves understand, the problem is that for a revolutionary, everyone else is a subversive, so they kill more people. If we just killed revolutionaries before they even amassed power, we would save a lot of lives in the end. That's what Pinochet understood.
>>480012
Monarchy and tradition aren't the same thing.
The absolute monarchies of Early Modern Europe were anti-traditional, because they aimed at destroying ancient traditional privileges and liberties and to strengthen the central authority around the monarch. That's why the Fronde happened, the English Civil War (the Marxist interpretation is garbage desu) and the Catalan Revolt of 1640. They were all traditional reactions against the growth of royal power.
What the French Revolution did wasn't so much as to destroy this central power, but to consolidate it's victory. Robespierre did what Louis XIV always wanted to do but never could, get rid of every single intermediate body of society and to crush the very instinct of association and the tendency to form societies within society.
It's ironic that those who oppose the growth of such Power are called willing sheep.
>>480062
I know they aren't the same thing.
But you seem to support both of them.
Monarchy is now associated with tradition, and was largely supported by it.
And while it did allow for the greater centralisation of power, it still allowed individuals to be free-er from the domination of those born into power.
While there is more power today, in the past it was held by fewer people.
And only the aristocracy and bourgeoisie could even be considered remotely free in the time.
Serfs and those in the countryside, over 90% of the population, were essentially slaves.
You reduce the experience general population down to that of the upper classes.
>>473614
Well would you have rather lived in a world where the French went along with Robespierre after he went batshit and almost turned France into a cult nation?
>>471701
>Implying Nappy wasn't a tyrant
He looked pretty good compared to all the other tyrants of his day including the revolutionaries, but I don't see how a "democratically elected" military officer declaring himself Emperor and subjugating the continent isn't tyranny.
>>471538
Define tyranny
>>471538
Not always some times you get America, other times you get counter revolution
>>480062
>The absolute monarchies of Early Modern Europe were anti-traditional, because they aimed at destroying ancient traditional privileges and liberties and to strengthen the central authority around the monarch. That's why the Fronde happened, the English Civil War (the Marxist interpretation is garbage desu) and the Catalan Revolt of 1640. They were all traditional reactions against the growth of royal power.
>What the French Revolution did wasn't so much as to destroy this central power, but to consolidate it's victory. Robespierre did what Louis XIV always wanted to do but never could, get rid of every single intermediate body of society and to crush the very instinct of association and the tendency to form societies within society.
Holy shit, I never thought about it like this
>>482889
>the Marxist interpretation is garbage desu
>>482889
>Robespierre did what Louis XIV always wanted to do but never could, get rid of every single intermediate body of society and to crush the very instinct of association and the tendency to form societies within society.
I love ignorant self-contradiction.
>>473629
>>explicitly stating that the founding fathers designed the Revolutionary War to deliver them a republic for the bourgeoisie to rule over, presumably at the expense of all others
>The American revolution was a bourgeois revolution
>The American revolution established a political system where the bourgeoisie would rule instead of monarchs and aristocrats
But that's correct. Anon, why get triggered by these words just because you associate them with "muh gommies"?
>>482896
There's what Marx literally said and there are Marxist interpretations of the French Revolution
>>482929
Lots of US proles have a problem with marxist terminology.
>>482896
De Maistre (IIRC) said the same thing, senpai
>>482929
>>482943
I think the main disconnect there is "dictatorship"; the American republic was specifically set up so that no one branch of government would hold more power than any over and that's pretty much the opposite of a dictatorship. On paper, of course, but someone with a knowledge of Marxism should know all about failed states ;^)
>>474260
holy shit
>>482896
I was referring to the Marxist interpretation of the English Civil War, senpai, which ignores it's links with other similar European movements at the time and instead portrays it as a unique social revolution.
>>483243
>Dictatorship Marx's writings refers to class dominance.
I was under the impression that we were using the dictionary.
>>483274
Yes, let's use the OED and apply it to situations where terms are used terminologically.
Fucking hell, dicdef?
>>483280
Arbitrarily re-defining words without mentioning the fact is a form of moving the goalposts, senpai. If you say "dictator" while mentioning the American republic I'm going to to the Roman Republic first (as the origin of the term) with the OED a cunt hair behind. I've had a lot of marxists try to weasel out of discussions on "muh definishuns" and consequentially I have a very low tolerance for it.
>>471538
Because they don't change their way of thinking from the way of thinking of the deposed.
>>483303
dictatorship of the
>proletariat
plural
not dictatorship of the
>proletarian
singular
It refers to the passage of absolute power to the working class, and subjugation of the bourgeoisie in the intermediate period after the revolution, before class distinctions obviate. It does not refer to the literal dictatorship of one working class person.
You are a retard who can't master basic reading comprehension.
>>483338
Don't bother, he has no understanding of the implicit theory he's using.
>>471569
>change monarchy for an oligarchy
>not trading tyranny for tyranny
Maybe we should impose mandatory revolutions every 4-5 years so nobody in power has the chance to really do anything.
"The time to buy is when there's blood in the streets." - Baron Rothschild
Certain individuals seek opportunity in times of uncertainty. When there is whole sale changeover, people tend to follow the easiest path back to normalcy.
>>471538
Scrolling past I read that as "tranny replaced by tranny"
Comfort begets Tyranny.
If a revolution is a violent one, then you have created a society where violence is justified along ideological grounds.
At first the violence is directed among those who are ostensibly enemies, and then it is against the people on "your side" and so on and so on.
>>482929
Except no they fucking didn't because they didn't think in terms of Marx's class analysis which hadn't been thought of for almost another century. You massive fucking faggot. There were wide-ranging differences among the societies of the different colonies at the time of independence, and the limitations placed on government obviously made a "dictatorship" of any sense neigh impossible.
History is not about projecting your beliefs onto the past, it's about examining what actually happened and what the people of the time believed matters much more than your own subjective thoughts on what they thought. As I said before, you Marxist fruits are no historians, you're ideologues only interested in what you can take from history and what you can abuse. Get the fuck off of /his/ if you're not interested in the actual history beyond what it can do for your pet ideology today.
>>482943
>US proles
>implying Marx even anticipated the service-heavy economy we live in today and the idea of a proletariat is even relevant in a society where a supermajority does not produce anything or labor over anything
Fucking ideologues, man.
>>485144
>History is not about projecting your beliefs onto the past, it's about examining what actually happened and what the people of the time believed matters much more than your own subjective thoughts on what they thought. As I said before, you Marxist fruits are no historians, you're ideologues only interested in what you can take from history and what you can abuse. Get the fuck off of /his/ if you're not interested in the actual history beyond what it can do for your pet ideology today.
Keep whining, nerd.
>>485496
Sick burn yo, doesn't change the fact that I'm right. History is history, not ideological fodder.
>>485496
If you don't accept the principle of working towards historical objectivity, you're no better than the pseudo-intellectuals who claim that the Greeks were black, or that Vikings were primarily women.
>my ideologically driven view of the past is correct because my ideology is correct! p-power to the people!
>>485144
>Hunter-gatherers weren't Hunter-gatherers because they didn't consider themselves to be Hunter-gatherers
>The Bronze Age wasn't the Bronze Age because they didn't consider themselves as being in the Bronze Age
>West Germanics weren't West Germanics because they didn't consider themselves West Germanics
So the Holy Roman Empire really WAS a Holy Roman Empire??
>>485894
Damn str8.
>>485910
The anon said that the founding fathers had the revolution specifically to deliver the dictatorship of the bourgeousie. This is an absolutely absurd idea, as you can very clearly read and understand how they set up the government, who it was to be run by, and why they did the things they did. They did not act out of some sense of belonging to the same class, as the Marxist tries to project on them, and that is very, very clear from their own writings on their grievances.
He is trying to be like Freud, except with Marx, and try to psychoanalyze and decipher the TRUE MEANING!!!1! behind their actions, as told to him by his ideology which cannot be wrong in its interpretation of peoples' motives, even if the people deliver very clear reasoning for their own actions.
It's horse-shit anon. Of course there are objective truths, but the Marxist is not after objective truth in history, he seeks only what he thinks can win him favor in the present. In other words, he doesn't give a damn about the truth. He wants what he wants from history, and if it doesn't give it to him outright he'll make things up. "Re-interpret" something, "re-analyze" something else, etc, etc, until the past fits his worldview and justifies it. He projects his own ideas and feelings into the past and it confounds his ability to understand that objective, factual past.
>>485951
>They did not act out of some sense of belonging to the same class
Who had voting rights when the US was established?
Well that is a very simplified way of understanding the matter. It's never the same kind of tyranny And they are never the same social sector who suffers the tyranny.
>>485960
It was not because they believed themselves to be a class in the Marxist sense. Their reasoning was that, as those who provided the government with taxes and money, they had the best vested interest in where it went and therefore had the most say. The classical republics they sought to emulate only gave voting rights to proper citizens, a special rank in the society. They were also afraid of direct democracy, which can devolve into mob rule, as taken advantage of by many Roman populists. They had very clear reasoning for their actions, made doubly so in their writings and debates, that cannot simply be attributed to "they just loved to oppress peasants, man." They didn't do it to shake down or prevent the rise of "the proletariat," and most had very different views of what the new republic should strive to be. To suggest there was a unity of purpose between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams is absurd, even more absurd to suggest they would put aside their differences just to justify Marx's theories and oppress dirt farmers for no reason.
They did not do it to rule over other people, as Marx believed the bourgeoisie did. And the vote very rapidly (historically speaking) became a right of the majority of men in the country. Even after the Civil War, black men could vote (free blacks beforehand as well, I think), but as Reconstruction ended this was sadly curtailed all across the country.
>>486039
You can write a whole series of books about why they limited voting rights to free male-adult property owners and how that's justified but it doesn't change that that they specifically designed a government where free property-owning persons ruled. Free property-owning persons are called the bourgeoisie. A government ruled by one political entity is a dictatorship. If you just drop the emotional baggage, anon, you'll see where this is going.
>>486111
A. It was never a dictatorship in any sense of the word; the rights of all men were to be protected even if they couldn't vote, and then the vote was rapidly extended to all free men
B. It was never done at the expense of another "class" or to steal from the poor as Marx would claim
C. The idea of the bourgeoisie as a conscious class during that time period is countered by the very clear divisions between those in government and their writings, making it clear that they were acting on more than greedy self-interest for their "class" and were motivated by their differing values
This does not in any way fit into Marx's cookie-cutter view of the world besides a cosmetic similarity.
>a government ruled by one political entity is a dictatorship
Oh, so because people share a certain trait it makes them a "political entity?" As if they're a fucking hivemind because they've got similar backgrounds? Are we to ignore the fights between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, just because of one over-simplified similarity? The courts that protected the common folks, which any decent dictatorship would ensure would be just show trials? And that class-hivemind told them to give voting rights to those without property later? And it also told them to respect the rights of those who couldn't vote, and they didn't despoil them or steal "muh excess value" from them either?
Some dictatorship.
