Buta Koushaku ni Tensei Shitakara, Kondo wa Kimi ni Suki to Iitai - Vol. 4 Ch. 22

[beperov]

the MC reminded me of Samurai Flamenco's "I know you're right but still my sense of justice tells me not to listen!"

 

[comeonnow]

@criver As someone working in the background to orchestrate the revolution, he clearly plays a major part in not only whether the revolution occurs but also in how it occurs.

Also, you ignore the fact that there's a difference between the magically talented and the nobility/royalty. Charlotte is a clear example of a royal who socks at magic. The commoner classmate (who was male in the novel but is female here) is the other end of the spectrum.

My conclusion as to how this revolution will end is that the MC will simply crush it and allow the ruling elite to continue to oppress the common masses. That's the clear end. Other than that, though, it depends on how it would happen. If the nobility and royalty are as eloquent in explaining to the masses their justification for ruling as Alicia is (i.e. if they suck at explaining their rule), then there could be a quick revolution. Maybe Cephas will be a leader in the revolution and leader into the new order. He seems at least somewhat capable. Wanting greater equality is not incompatible with having leaders. Yes, that has actually happened in real life with real revolutions turning out for the better. Yes, there are failures too. It's not a guarantee that Cephas would fail in bringing about a better system, though.

 

[primrosea]

holysht so many essays

 

[galey]

Charlotte and Alicia are both annoyingly useless. I don’t know if this manga just wants to stroke the male ego and push the ‘man strong, woman weak’ agenda, but Jesus Christ. They have magic too, at least make them do something.

 

[criver]

@comeonnow
The spoiler is for compression purposes:

Spoiler

The problem of how it occurs is really with the idea on which the revolution is based, namely that nobles are vile oppressors. That's a slippery slope, next thing you know this rage will be transferred to every person more successful than the average, as has in fact happened many times in history, given a similar motivation. There's simply a logical conclusion to what should happen. If you use class hatred and the envy of people to overthrow the status quo you cannot seriously expect to be able to control that (and they weren't able to in the example you gave: the French revolution). You cannot have your cake and eat it too (not in reality).

Also, you ignore the fact that there's a difference between the magically talented and the nobility/royalty.

I cannot presume to be able to peek into the author's head, but in general you need practice and mentorship to be able to develop your talents reliably. It's not that far fetched that this holds for magic also. When you're a noble you have the preferential option to attend a school for magic, when you're a commoner you're likely preoccupied with more immediate issues pertaining to your survival. I am not claiming that there's no exception to the rule, but a country would hardly be able to sustain itself on a few exceptional people, especially if you consider that it likely relied heavily on magic up to now. A more realistic depiction of what ought to happen with an inequality generated by such an important talent is the premise of Shinsekai Yori, but I digress.

My conclusion as to how this revolution will end is that the MC will simply crush it and allow the ruling elite to continue to oppress the common masses.

That's beyond clear. The author wouldn't dare to do something so non cliche in a manga with Gary Stuish elements. I was talking in the context of what would happen if Cephas were to prevail, however, as that was one of your original points.

If the nobility and royalty are as eloquent in explaining to the masses their justification for ruling as Alicia is

A revolution based on class hatred cannot be defused by eloquent explanations. The two are incompatible.

Maybe Cephas will be a leader in the revolution and leader into the new order. He seems at least somewhat capable.

That's being optimistic. Rarely do the people that hold the pure uncorrupted ideology come to power - think of the conclusion of the Russian and French revolutions. If anything he will likely be labeled also an enemy of the cause, for being successful and having associated with the nobility, by someone unscrupulous enough that wants to rise to the top. Also, being a capable soldier doesn't mean you are capable at ruling a country, I would even argue it's the opposite.

Yes, that has actually happened in real life with real revolutions turning out for the better.

Maybe I am unaware of those, so feel free to mention non bloodless revolutions based on class hatred in a medieval time that ended better. We should also clarify what better means here.

It's not a guarantee that Cephas would fail in bringing about a better system, though.

Given everything that we know, I would say it's highly probable this will end in a failure.

 

[conscript117]

@beperov Justice is subjective and what is not right is the method to achieve that end...

 

[comeonnow]

@criver You specifically say that the spread of hatred against other areas of society will be a logical conclusion. Meanwhile, earlier in your paragraph, you talk about slippery slopes. Yeah, sure.

Let me be clear. I understand your argument about how in the minds of the rebelling commoners, there is likely to be a slippery slope. I still disagree. In real life situations like this, the revolutionaries often do not just include more and more groups to go against. They instead connect more people to the original group. Oh, you're a collaborator of the royalty or nobility in some way. That's how the slippery does work. And even then, yes, there are cases of successful revolutions that started from a basis of revolting against class oppression.

Again, I fully recognize that the French Revolution resulted in wars and then Napoleon and even more wars. You ignkre the successful effects it had such as abolition of the monarchy in France, eventual creation of the republic, and massive reforms to address inequality in neighboring countries. This is just something that we have to agree to disagree on. Yes, there were some positive effects of the revolution.

Lastly, yes, there is a chance for Cephas to be a leader. History abounds with examples.

Okay, at the end of the day, you focus on all of the bad possibilities and the likelihood of them happening. Let's say that you're right. It's more likely than not that this will be a bad revolution. It's it not potentially with trying? How much suffering must the commoners endure before they're allowed to rebel? How much is enough for it to be worth it?

We ultimately disagree on the chances of success as well as the potential benefits and disadvantages. It should be indisputable that they don't even try to explain any of this in the story, though.

 

[criver]

@comeonnow

Spoiler

You specifically say that the spread of hatred against other areas of society will be a logical conclusion.

No, I said that the class hatred basis of the revolution will lead to its logical conclusion of tragedy and misery. With the people, for whom the revolution is supposedly fought, ending up worse.

In real life situations like this, the revolutionaries often do not just include more and more groups to go against.

Not in the revolutions we mentioned. In both the "designers" of the revolution got themselves killed - that's how out of hands things get when power is at stake. The average person for whose rights the revolution supposedly was, ended up worse. You can argue how the "ideas" had good effects in the long term. However, you'd be hard pressed to find something that has only negative effects. If anything there are enough countries that didn't need revolutions, but are not ethically or morally inferior compared to countries which had cleansing revolutions based on class hatred like Russia or France, on the contrary. The ends do not justify the means. What's class hatred may as well be replaced with racial/ethnic/religious hatred and the effects won't be much different. Vilifying a group of people in order to push an agenda is a standard technique - the end results of such tactics are well known from history and also make logical sense.

And even then, yes, there are cases of successful revolutions that started from a basis of revolting against class oppression.

Depends how you define successful and how relevant those are to the manga. Do mention the revolutions that you believe support your point.

Lastly, yes, there is a chance for Cephas to be a leader. History abounds with examples.

Unless he plans to become a monster and tyrant worse than the ones before him, no. Since he'll be competing with such for power after the revolution. There's enough "incriminating evidence" for him to be represented as an oppressor similar to the class they plan to cleanse, he fits in there quite well.

It's it not potentially with trying? How much suffering must the commoners endure before they're allowed to rebel? How much is enough for it to be worth it?

Considering that what they will be fighting for is a lie (they likely won't live to see it), and they will effectively make things worse for themselves, I would say it is not worth it. A destruction of the pillars on which your country stands (the nobility and specifically the mages) and on which production is crucially dependent is not a wise thing to do. Sure, it is nice to blame groups of people that are more successful, especially when times are hard. But at the end of the day that is not how problems are solved - it's how you create more problems, and history backs me up on that account too.

 

[comeonnow]

@criver Again, you're making it seem inevitable that the means of production, magic, will automatically be taken out alongside the corruption of the aristocracy and the exploitation of the commoners. There are many examples of revolutions that took out the legally sanctioned nobility and left in place the industrialists. In fact, that was one of the main goals of the French Revolution in the first place, that the bourgeoisie, legally part of the Third Estate, should be given more respect as against the nobility and clergy.

And you're ignoring the fact that in this world, the commoners are already treated like crap. Maybe they actually would prefer the war and struggle for equality than the absolute crap they experience now. We have had hints of that with Cephas to some extent. The fact that we basically don't see any commoners also speaks to that matter.

And again, I wish they would've even discussed it to some extent. They didn't in the story.

 

[beperov]

@conscript117 yeah but the thing im referencing is posed as a joke lol, there's no clip of it on youtube so I had to type it out

 

[criver]

@comeonnow It will be taken out, since the majority of competent mages are nobles, as far as we know from the premise. As I already mentioned, even if a peasant had talent, they do not have the time or mentorship to really develop it. So logically the majority of competent mages are nobles (in that context do watch Shinsekai Yori). This means that the revolution will have to destroy a staple of their country, which coincidentally both revolutions that we mentioned did. The remaining majority of competent people will be taken out as collateral damage since them being successful disagrees with the main psychological motivation behind group hatred: prejudice and stereotypization, and specific to this case: blaming people you envy for your problems, regardless whether it is justified. You mentioned the French revolution again, but I guess you are aware that after the revolution in France, people were worse off. Reign of terror, uncontrollable inflation, wars, and ultimately dictatoriship. Ironically they got a dictator to substitute and stabilize the country after fighting for their freedom from the monarchy. If anything the French revolution works against your point so I still do not understand why you keep mentioning it.

And you're ignoring the fact that in this world, the commoners are already treated like crap. Maybe they actually would prefer the war and struggle for equality than the absolute crap they experience now.

By medieval Europe standards they are treated quite well. They would not prefer a war if they knew what follows, but as in any revolution they will be fed "nobles bad, we good" propaganda and promises for a better tomorrow, while in fact the outcome would lead to a more miserable state of living for them.

 

[comeonnow]

@criver I specifically already talked about how there were wars and Napoleon after the French Revolution. That was literally in my first post that talked about it. However, you still have not addressed two facts. One, that other countries in the region instituted major reforms and became much less oppressive of commoners as a direct result of the French Revolution. That is a fact. They saw and responded to the Revolution by trying to make things somewhat better for the commoners. Second, you still have not responded to the fact that the French Revolution was necessary for the eventual formation of the French Republic. These are the reasons that I keep bringing it up as an example. Yes, it got worse for a while. Guess what happened afterwards? It got better! Cephas is aware that he is literally trying to start a war. He generally understands people die when they are killed! I'm slightly memeing here, but he probably thinks the temporary suffering of revolution is worth the cost of eventual goals of greater equality.

Given the premise, it seems that at birth, commoners are just as likely to be gifted with magic as nobles. Add in the fact that by absolute necessity, there are much more commoners than nobility. That means they still have the capacity to have mages. Your only point is that the commoners don't have the time to invest in developing their magic. What's a likely reason why commoners don't have enough time and resources? Because of oppression by the nobility!

We haven't seen a good explanation of what a majority of commoners believe and prefer. However, it is very possible that they would still prefer war if they knew it meant they or their descendants could be treated like equals. Literally has happened in real life from medieval to modern to contemporary times.

 

[criver]

@comeonnow

Spoiler

I did address these facts but I will do so again. 1) I already mentioned that it's not only bad things that came out of the revolution. 2) There are plenty of countries that achieved a smoother and nicer transition without having to play at class hatred, reign of terror or anything of the sort. To add to this, the attributed importance of the revolution for the ideas regarding human rights in the form that it happened is something highly subjective. What truly shaped the changes in my opinion is the ideas of intellectuals at the time (many of whom nobles). There are numerous reasons why the revolution happened: many of which purely materialistic: poor economic conditions, bad harvests, famine, and so on. So let's summarize this: on one side you have a subjective interpretation of the benefits of the revolution regarding morals and humanism, on the other you have factual evidence regarding the total crash of morals, ethics, and humanistic ideals reflected in the reign of terror, and a subsequent need of a dictatorship to stabilize this.

Yes, it got worse for a while. Guess what happened afterwards? It got better!

Guess what happened in many other countries: it didn't get worse because they didn't rely on revolutions based on hatred towards the elite, and it still got better. There's a good example of a country which did follow a similar idea of class hatred, however, and the results were appalling. I do not believe you are trying to defend the fact that a cleansing based on class hatred is something good, I think you are defending the idea of a revolution for equality. The problem is that revolutions (and other "endeavors") based on stereotyping and singling out a group of people as the enemy, and using that group as a scapegoat, are not really about equality - since in the very way they are carried out they betray their supposed goal. Things get especially problematic when that group of people plays a crucial role in the functioning of your country. Then you're basically sawing of the branch you're sitting on.

Cephas is aware that he is literally trying to start a war. He generally understands people die when they are killed!

Cephas is naive believing that what he does will improve the situation, he's about to substitute the educated elite with a bunch of peasants. Certainly in every system there are parasites, corruption, greed, and oppression - it's just part of the deal with humans. He'll just substitute educated and intelligent rulers with stupid ones. It's the typical: act first, think later. His idea of winning and then "everyone lived happily ever after" is straight out of a fairy tale.

Add in the fact that by absolute necessity, there are much more commoners than nobility. That means they still have the capacity to have mages.

Assuming that magic requires some amount of effort and study to develop (which it does according to the manga - unless you're MC Gary Stu) the above statement is simply untrue. It's like claiming that if you had enough peasants that do farm work 24/7 you could magically select a large enough % of great mathematicians from those without them ever having touched a mathematics book. And then comparing those to university graduates. Skills require time, effort, information, and mentorship to develop in general. Sometimes just having more people is not enough. Do you also wonder why science in the middle ages was developed exclusively by clergymen and nobles and not peasants?

What's a likely reason why commoners don't have enough time and resources? Because of oppression by the nobility!

The likely reason is that they are in a medieval like time frame, where you need to put in great efforts to be able to sustain yourself. Taxes just exacerbate this problem. But what's Cephas' solution to that problem? Remove the nobles? That's all fine and dandy until you realize that they are crucial to all functions beyond agriculture (and that too). Cephas' is just shortsighted - he doesn't have a solution, he just wants to win and expects an utopia to appear out of thin air. If anything I expect other countries to just trample over them after his playing at revolution ends.

We haven't seen a good explanation of what a majority of commoners believe and prefer.

It's pretty simple - they want a better standard of living. But they are stuck in a medieval world, so fat chance.

However, it is very possible that they would still prefer war if they knew it meant they or their descendants could be treated like equals. Literally has happened in real life from medieval to modern to contemporary times.

That's a bold statement. War has achieved "equality" only for enslaved ethnic groups. Equality in the sense of classes has never been achieved, science just developed and people got more efficient at producing more stuff, leading to a better standard of living.

 

[comeonnow]

@criver There are a couple of problems with what you've said.

Spoiler

First, you say there are plenty of countries that achieved a smoother and nicer transition without playing to class hatred. Please name two. I think two is fairly reasonable. These two examples must meet three criteria. 1) They had to have been smooth and nice transitions. This is something you already claimed them to be, so there shouldn't be a problem there. 2) Did not involve violence to achieve the transition. Again, you basically imply this, so this also shouldn't be a problem. 3) They were not influenced by a separate struggle that did involve using violence and class hatred, as you call it. That's the thing about the real world. Almost every single modern revolution that led to better results was influenced by either the American War of Independence or the French Revolution, both of which very clearly involved a lot of violence and hatred of classes. Again, I keep referring to the French Revolution not only for the effects that it brought for France itself but also for the neighboring countries.

And my gosh, that's such a crass over-simplification of the causes of the French Revolution. Yes, let's please ignore the Estates General, the Tennis Court Oath, and all of the other actually written and spoken statements of the time. On one hand you have people telling you why they revolted. On the other hand, you claim to be rooted in purely materialistic issues. Let me be clear that I do not think that the class issues were the only cause of the French Revolution. However, you seem to be ignoring them in favor of this narrative that gets you to this highly materialistic conclusion that you want.

Guess what happened in many other countries: it didn't get worse because they didn't rely on revolutions based on hatred towards the elite, and it still got better.

Again, I'd appreciate just two examples that fit the above criteria.

I do not believe you are trying to defend the fact that a cleansing based on class hatred is something good, I think you are defending the idea of a revolution for equality.

You are correct that I am defending the idea of revolution for equality. And yes, you are correct that many such revolutions end up relying upon scapegoating and such. You're still ignoring the fact that many of those revolutions were nevertheless still ultimately successful. The reason that I cite the French Revolution is because I know that it's not the best example. I cite it because it's a highly realistic example. I acknowledge all of its faults, the resultant Napoleonic Wars, and everything else that it had. By no means am I saying that the French Revolution was perfect. But again, I am still saying that the French Revolution was the necessary cause of the contemporary French Republic, which most people would strongly agree is much more equal and better to live in than the Ancien Regime, even if you ignore issues like technological advancements.

Cephas is naive believing that what he does will improve the situation, he's about to substitute the educated elite with a bunch of peasants.

Literally no evidence for that. Again, he could be a leader. George Washington led the US even though he played a leading role in starting the American Revolution in the first place. In the aftermath of the American Civil War, which was violent, they explicitly did not purge the rebel southern leaders. They offered them amnesty as part of nation building. It could be the exact same here. Cephas or any other leader could say hey, nobles, you are now stripped of your titles. If you wish to live in this new order, you will be legally equal. Everyone is now judged based on meritocracy. Yes, that has the interim effect that the former people in power will still be in power. However, there is the massive difference that it wouldn't be based on bloodline. The very fact that it's no longer foreclosed to commoners means something in and of itself. None of this is out of a fairy tale; this has happened in real life with various issues such as truth and reconciliation commissions.

The likely reason is that they are in a medieval like time frame, where you need to put in great efforts to be able to sustain yourself.

You're playing up this medieval setting without actually looking at the facts of this world. First, they have magic. Both of us literally already recognize the importance of magic in terms of being the means of production in society. Then here you go with saying that they need to sustain themselves and implying that magic is not the means by which they sustain themselves. That is the contradiction you are in. Magic could clearly be used for agrarian as well as industrial purposes. Water spirits to irrigate crops or to power waterwheels, for example. That puts a HUGE incentive to have more and more skilled mages. And yet, we see here that the society literally ridicules commoners who try to become skilled in magic, regardless of how useful that could actually be for society.

This basically turns your argument against you. The nobility actively and purposefully suppresses commoners from having access to the major means of production, magic. That significantly hinders the commoners ability to sustain themselves. And we have literally seen that here.

But they are stuck in a medieval world, so fat chance.

First, speculation. Nowhere has it said that. Second, you're playing the medieval world card way too much. There's no evidence of famine. There's no evidence of lack of ability to produce as of right now.

War has achieved "equality" only for enslaved ethnic groups. War has achieved "equality" only for enslaved ethnic groups.

Holy crap on a stick. Has my statement ever been that war has completely eliminated class distinctions? If it was, I would appreciate being shown that. My statement was that revolution in the name of fighting against class distinctions could make things better, have actually made things better in the real world in at least some cases. Again, the French Republic is the result of the French Revolution. That is an indisputable fact. Again, the French Republic has a more equal society than the Ancien Regime. Is the republic perfectly equal? Hell no. Is it better? By all means, yes.

Your analysis is just looking highly materialistic. I'm not saying ignore the materialism, but my goodness, it's shallow if you think that's all there is to life and people's motivations.

 

[criver]

@comeonnow

Spoiler

Two countries that didn't need any class based bloody revolutions to achieve "equality": Sweden and Norway. Countries that had class based bloody revolutions in the name of equality that achieved the exact opposite: the countries in the Soviet union. I believe it makes for a pretty good case. And since you're talking about the effects the French revolution brought to its neighbours - sure it resulted in some "good" reforms in several countries. On the other hand, the roots of communism are deeply intertwined with this revolution (and it practically serves as a precedent and role model for class cleansing). I count that as a net minus considering the misery communism brought, and the comparative insignificance of the "good" changes that the revolution brought. And lest you forget the immediate objective result of it: reign of terror, famine, misery, and dictatorship.

You seem to be concerned about my "materialistic" arguments. I emphasize those because they are factual and objective. On the other hand, I am concerned with your subjective arguments that are hard to quantify.

You're still ignoring the fact that many of those revolutions were nevertheless still ultimately successful.

Depends how you define success. I wouldn't call misery and indiscriminate killing success. You argue that there are some long term implications that would have otherwise been impossible. I disagree: there are countries that didn't have to resort to such means and cause such misery to achieve a reasonably humane system.

The reason that I cite the French Revolution is because I know that it's not the best example.

Ok, give a better example. Because currently as I see it that works against your point.

in the first place. In the aftermath of the American Civil War, which was violent, they explicitly did not purge the rebel southern leaders.

False analogy, this was not a class based war.

It could be the exact same here. Cephas or any other leader could say hey, nobles, you are now stripped of your titles. If you wish to live in this new order, you will be legally equal. Everyone is now judged based on meritocracy.

Yes indeed, that's the ideal utopian delusion of most revolutionaries. Instead, since a main motive for the peasants would be class hatred, you would get an out of hands situation like during the reign of terror and no amount of Cephas' pleading will solve this, lest he also be labeled as an enemy of the people. Which is by the way very convenient for anybody vying for power (and has been used extensively throughout history). Scapegoating rarely ends where you want it to. Now, clearly if Cephas' manages to become a ruthless enough tyrant, he could possibly stabilize this. But then comes the question: what was the point of this exercise? To replace one tyrant with another? And let's be honest: Cephas' main impulse was the death of his mother, so it's really personal and he doesn't actually care about the commoners - he's projecting his mother on them. To put it simply - he's not thinking rationally but rather emotionally.

Magic could clearly be used for agrarian as well as industrial purposes.

That's just a random statement - to what extent if at all it can be used depends on the author. This is not in the text, it's something you came up with.
But that's not the crux of our disagreement. If anything our disagreement doesn't even seem to be directly related to the manga. Correct me if I am wrong, but the issue that I see is that you're claiming something along the lines that a revolution in the name of "equality" regardless of the means will always be "good". Basically good old "the goal justifies the means". I disagree with that. That's why I presented the examples that I did, with the means defeating the goal. I simply disagree that much good can come from a class based culling, especially in the discussed setting. Which to be sure, the "revolution" will result in, if you brainwash the mob to believe that the elite are the enemies that are to blame for every problem. The slippery part here is that the proposition that someone more successful than you, of whom you're envious, is to blame for all of your issues and can be made the scapegoat, is a very attractive proposition regardless of how valid it is. People (especially less educated ones) like to believe what they want to believe.

First, speculation. Nowhere has it said that.

Yes, it is speculation. I was running with what I got as an impression from the premise. There's clearly not enough info in the text saying this explicitly, but considering the livelihood, way they dress, the setting, it seems reasonable to assume that it is relatively long before industrialization.

My statement was that revolution in the name of fighting against class distinctions could make things better, have actually made things better in the real world in at least some cases.

I simply disagree with this in the case that this fight is based upon class hatred and using the elite as a scapegoat. As mentioned, the immediate and direct effect of the French revolution was chaos, terror, and dictatorship. I don't know how you are able to dismiss that fact and somehow conclude that modern day equality is a direct product of it. What about other countries that didn't require such misery? That's the problem with subjective interpretations. You cannot tell what would have happened without the revolution wrt human rights. Well, you do know that the immediate misery and chaos would have been avoided.

 

[comeonnow]

@criver

Spoiler

Ah, yes, Sweden and Norway, which learned absolutely nothing from the American and French Revolutions and were totally uninfluenced by it. Your argument is actually wrong. Literally wrong. The ideas of Swedish republicanism came directly from the French Revolution. Likewise for Norway which was in a union with Sweden until 1905.

I am not going to engage in an argument about the merits or demerits of communism. That is well beyond the scope of this subject. However, suffice it to say that the above shows that you don't know the basis of your examples.

You emphasize materialistic arguments over and above literally what the people said was the reason they were rebelling. That's a massive form of paternalism and screwed up argument. Oh, I know why they *really* rebelled. I don't need need to look at what they said. I know better than them. It's ironic that you call my argument subjective when you do something like that.

You say you disagree and that there were countries that didn't have to resort to such means as violence to transition into a more equal society. You failed to give a proper example. The two examples that you gave were, in the first place, actually just one example given that Sweden and Norway were in political union until 1905. Second, they directly learned the lesson from the French Revolution. Republicanism in Sweden/Norway did not exist until the French Revolution. Let me be clear that by republicanism, I do not mean total abolition of the monarchy. I mean the idea of giving more power to the people and not having it so massively unequal. Yes, I know that's not how republicanism is usually used. My point is that the French Revolution basically served as the lesson for what happens if you don't institute reforms.

You say the American Civil War, which was literally fought over the issue of legally-sanctioned slavery, was not a class-based war? Oh my goodness. And don't give me some cover-up about how it was actually about states' rights. It was states' rights to allow slavery specifically. Slavery is a class-based distinction simply taken to an extreme. You're born into nobility. You're born into slavery. You're born into citizenship. It's very clearly a class issue, and the American Civil War was inextricably tied to the issue of slavery.

Scapegoating rarely ends where you want it to.

I've literally given an example of where that worked in real life, and your only response was that the US Civil War was a false analogy. I've already answered that. It's not utopian if it has literally happened in real life and on a large scale.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the issue that I see is that you're claiming something along the lines that a revolution in the name of "equality" regardless of the means will always be "good".

I am correcting you now. My claim is that it CAN be good, not that it ALWAYS will be good. I have made it abundantly clear that there have been failed revolutions in the past that were made in the name of equality. I have literally said that throughout this whole conversation. The problem is that you dispute that it could EVER be for good.

As mentioned, the immediate and direct effect of the French revolution was chaos, terror, and dictatorship. I don't know how you are able to dismiss that fact and somehow conclude that modern day equality is a direct product of it.

I don't understand why you're so focused on the short-term and immediate effects when we literally have the benefit of history to make a conclusion. If we went with your way of doing things, then there should never be ANY kind of defense against an oppressor because the short-term effect is that the oppressor, who is almost always stronger than the oppressed, will try to continue to maintain the unequal relationship and continue to oppress. If we went with your way of doing things, then we would only ever look at short-term consequences and literally never plan for the future.

As mentioned, the long-term effect of the French Revolution is the modern French Republic. That is literally indisputable. But you want to just hand-wave it and say no, only focus on the short-term.

And as to other countries that didn't require such misery, the reason is that they learned from the history and example set by the French Revolution. That's why the importance of the French Revolution. You really need better examples.

 

[criver]

@comeonnow

Spoiler

Sweden and Norway, which learned absolutely nothing from the American and French Revolutions and were totally uninfluenced by it.

That's not what I said though, is it? It's a pretty blatant strawman, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I made sure to be very precise when I said that they didn't require a bloody class revolution like the one we are discussing. I already granted you the fact that the French revolution has had positive effects numerous times, however, those effects are ones you cannot objectively quantify.

I am not going to engage in an argument about the merits or demerits of communism.

Feel free not to, but be aware that this doesn't grant you a free pass wrt dismissing that argument. It's an argument very similar to your own, though more explicit. You claim that the French revolution has had positive effects wrt human rights etc, and I agree - the problem is that you cannot reliably quantify those, but we can reliably and objectively quantify many of the negative effects. In the same manner we know that the French revolution has served as a model for the Russian revolution, and that the roots of communism lie in it. Considering the atrocities that resulted from this, betraying the idea of equality and substituting this with a perverted idea of equity, I think this is fairly important to note if you are to analyze effects of the French revolution in an unbiased manner. And this perversion of the idea of equality is something that was present in the French revolution too, or rather what it devolved into. So you ought to find it hard to dismiss this while at the same time claiming that the positive effects hold.

Oh, I know why they *really* rebelled. I don't need need to look at what they said.

Another strawman. I presented objective reasons why the revolution occurred, I never said those were the only ones, unlike the words you trying to put in my mouth:

There are numerous reasons why the revolution happened: many of which purely materialistic: poor economic conditions, bad harvests, famine, and so on.

I also already explained why I emphasized objective reasons, so your remark reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

You say you disagree and that there were countries that didn't have to resort to such means as violence to transition into a more equal society. You failed to give a proper example.

Second, they directly learned the lesson from the French Revolution.

The latter does not disagree with the former. As mentioned both countries didn't have to resort to such means, the fact that they may have supposedly "learned" something from the French revolution doesn't offset that fact. Worse yet, the importance and strength of the "learned lesson" is a subjective speculation. You cannot honestly believe you can objectively quantify the magnitude and all the effects the French revolution had on those.

You say the American Civil War, which was literally fought over the issue of legally-sanctioned slavery, was not a class-based war?

Surprise, surprise, you're misinterpreting again what I have stated by taking it out of context. Seems like it's becoming a habit. For a while now we have been discussing a revolution based on singling out a group of successful privileged people and using those as a scapegoat. This is clearly not the case in the American Civil War, hence the false and inapplicable analogy. The slaves were not a privileged group of successful people, they were seen as property. That's one thing. The other thing is that you should take into account which side won. It's clear that you do not have pressure to purge the ones who lost when there was no manufactured class hatred towards them to begin with.

I am correcting you now. My claim is that it CAN be good, not that it ALWAYS will be good. I have made it abundantly clear that there have been failed revolutions in the past that were made in the name of equality. I have literally said that throughout this whole conversation. The problem is that you dispute that it could EVER be for good.

Then allow me to correct you too - I do not dispute that it is impossible. I am arguing that the probability that you can get something overwhelmingly positive from such shitfest is very small, as history has demonstrated numerous times. You cannot keep betraying the goal you're fighting for at every turn and expect to achieve it. I have provided objective verifiable arguments for the negative effects of the revolution, you have provided subjective speculative arguments about the positive effects. I am trying to understand your point, but you have to give me something to work with beyond subjective musings.

I don't understand why you're so focused on the short-term and immediate effects when we literally have the benefit of history to make a conclusion.

Because, as I already emphasized, those are an objective direct consequence of the revolution, which does not need guesswork to be verified. The effects that you are suggesting to consider are a lot harder to quantify, and in general you cannot say much about those with great certainty. It's basically speculation.

If we went with your way of doing things, then there should never be ANY kind of defense against an oppressor because the short-term effect is that the oppressor, who is almost always stronger than the oppressed, will try to continue to maintain the unequal relationship and continue to oppress.

A third strawman? I must say that I am impressed. I stated my point quite clearly in my previous comment:

I simply disagree that much good can come from a class based culling, especially in the discussed setting.

I didn't claim that fighting for equality is wrong, I claimed that the above way about going about it simply betrays the goal and often leads to tragic outcomes.

If we went with your way of doing things, then we would only ever look at short-term consequences and literally never plan for the future.

If you went with my way of doing things you would consider at least some verifiable objective evidence as an argument, which incidentally happened to be the immediate effects of the revolution. Instead the only arguments you have presented are purely speculative.

As mentioned, the long-term effect of the French Revolution is the modern French Republic. That is literally indisputable.

The French republic is also a product of any other historical event that happened there. Your point? Or is it that you want to attribute all human rights related reforms to the French revolution?

And as to other countries that didn't require such misery, the reason is that they learned from the history and example set by the French Revolution.

I call that speculation.

Still waiting for a better example btw:

Ok, give a better example. Because currently as I see it that works against your point.

 

[comeonnow]

@criver

Spoiler

I literally asked for two examples that were not influenced by the French Revolution or the American Revolution. You failed to follow that simple request.

You're literally trying to say that you can **quantify** the negative effects of the French Revolution while you cannot quantify the positive effects based on the same criteria? This is getting to be ridiculous. You're literally just focusing on the negatives. Also, you have not made any adequate connection between the French Revolution and communism. You're trying to hand wave it in. Your only statement is that "On the other hand, the roots of communism are deeply intertwined with this revolution (and it practically serves as a precedent and role model for class cleansing)." You know what could've also served as a role model for class cleansing? All the other class cleansing throughout history!

You know what communism is based on? It's based on Karl Marx's writings. I think that's relatively uncontroversial. You know what Marx's writings, specifically the ones that led to communism were based on? They were based on his readings of Hegel! That's explicit where Marx talks about turning the Hegelian dialectic upside-down (I can't remember the exact wording) and starting from a point of materialism. It's actually ironic that your comments are so focused on materialism when you criticize communism, but that's not really the point. Anyways, the burden on you is not only to connect Hegel to the French Revolution. He lived during it, so of course he was affected in some way. Your burden is instead that the French Revolution in some way materially impacted Hegel in his writings in a way that materially impacted Karl Marx in his writings in a way that materially impacted communism. You have not made that connection.

I presented objective reasons why the revolution occurred, I never said those were the only ones, unlike the words you trying to put in my mouth:

False. You are literally ignoring the fact that you wrote IN RESPONSE to my comments. My comments already began with the statement that the causes of the French Revolution were many and complex, but we can at least pay some attention to the actual written and spoken statements of the revolutionaries. Your comment about materialism NEEDS to be read in light of that context. Your comment of focusing on materialism is given as the ALTERNATIVE, not as the supplement, to my comment about what the revolutionaries actually said. That is how language works; it's even evident in how you keep calling them "objective" even though it's not true. It's true that they were empirically observed phenomena. It is not true that they were the CAUSES of the French Revolution. Saying that those material conditions existed is objective. Making the causal connection is NOT an objective statement.

As mentioned both countries didn't have to resort to such means, the fact that they may have supposedly "learned" something from the French revolution doesn't offset that fact.

YES IT DOES! They learned that if they do not implement reforms, then they could have a bloody revolution like the French Revolution! That does offset the fact that they didn't resort to such violent means! How is that so difficult to understand? Hey, let's not repeat the same issues as France, which we only know about because we have literally learned it through history. If the French Revolution did not happen, then they would not have learned the lesson!

Worse yet, the importance and strength of the "learned lesson" is a subjective speculation. You cannot honestly believe you can objectively quantify the magnitude and all the effects the French revolution had on those.

This is pathetic. This is pathetic beyond belief. In memoirs and statements from the politicians involved in the reforms, the French Revolution was cited as at least one of the causes for them introducing the reforms. It's not speculation when they literally say it.

Oh, please forgive me. Oh, apparently what people say about their motives is subjective, just like with the French Revolution. This is just sad on your part. If you cannot believe a person when they explain their motives (and you have no reason to doubt them), then there's absolutely no use in arguing with you.

Your analysis of the American Civil War is faulty at best. Let me say this. Even if I completely accept your premises, your conclusion is wrong. The American Civil War can still be used as a basis for learning that scapegoating doesn't always happen, EVEN IF the conflict was not based on the oppressed rebelling against the oppressors (I'll get to that in a moment). There was large reason to scapegoat the southern rebel leaders! Because they caused the conflict! This has happened in other wars throughout history, including in ones similar to the American Civil War. Scapegoating has happened before in similar conflicts, and it has happened since. The point of bringing up the ACW is to show that scapegoating is not inevitable. Anyways, the example is still actually based on the oppressed rebelling against the oppressors. The Union was fighting on behalf of the slaves. The slaves often joined in the fight against the Confederacy. A LARGE part of the conflict was fueled by escaping slaves who took refuge in the north and influenced politicians and leaders into taking up their cause. I understand that Cephas isn't doing this, but he might have done something similar. Plead for help from a third-party against the corruption and oppression of the nobility and monarchy. It would've invited the EXACT same issues of scapegoating. It's still possible for scapegoating to not happen.

You keep calling my points subjective musings and your points objective facts. Yeah, right. That's such a good and accurate representation. Again, refer to how your causal connections are massive speculation and subjective interpretation.

And honestly, we don't seem to be disagreeing on the main issue that it is possible. My problem was that you dismissed the possibility of success out of hand and ignored the successful revolutions in the real world. Yes, I fully recognize that revolutions often fail and end up bad. I have literally said that since my first post. The problem was your fatalism. You keep calling your claims objective when you stick to such fatalism? That's putting aside the fact that you're not being objective. It just seems wrong on a fundamental level to say that it's doomed to failure when there is still a possibility of success.

Because, as I already emphasized, those are an objective direct consequence of the revolution, which does not need guesswork to be verified. The effects that you are suggesting to consider are a lot harder to quantify, and in general you cannot say much about those with great certainty. It's basically speculation.

Yeah, nope. Again, you're guilty of hypocrisy by claiming that my statements are speculation despite the fact that many successful reforms (I say reforms as broader than violent revolutions; I am including the example of Sweden/Norway) SPECIFICALLY cite the French Revolution. If anyone is speculating, it's you. When someone says they're doing something because of X, AND you have no reason to doubt them, then you, by default, believe them! That's not speculation! That's how communication works.

A third strawman? I must say that I am impressed. I stated my point quite clearly in my previous comment:

Your focus on the short-term as though it's more objective than the long-term is laughable at best considering the actually made statements of the people in the long-term.

If you went with my way of doing things you would consider at least some verifiable objective evidence as an argument, which incidentally happened to be the immediate effects of the revolution. Instead the only arguments you have presented are purely speculative.

Again, it's not speculation when they literally say the words "I'm doing this because of the French Revolution". It's often not in those exact words, but it's often still pretty clear regardless.

The French republic is also a product of any other historical event that happened there.

False. Observably false. Again, people say things. You just call that speculative and refuse to listen.

I call that speculation.

You're calling what people say is their motive speculation. This is beyond ridiculous.

Still waiting for a better example btw:

I'm also waiting for a better example from you.

I keep talking about the French Revolution because it is messy, because it is real-world, because it shows the complexities of real life. Your example of Sweden/Norway actually furthers my point. Here is just one article on the importance of the French Revolution to the changes in Sweden/Norway, specifically the 1809 coup that resulted in greater power in the hands of the parliament and the end of the absolute monarchy. http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A169361&dswid=-4368

Okay, I'm out. You have consistently tried to ignore the statements of what people actually say is their motives. Instead, you have tried to say that these so-called "objective", material conditions are somehow more valid as the CAUSAL connection, even though you give no explanation. You're vaguely gesturing at "quality of life" as the explanation for a lot of this.

If that's how ridiculous you're going to be, then I'm out.

 

[TanithG]

Thanks for the TL!

 

[criver]

@comeonnow

Spoiler

There seem to be a few misunderstandings here. The first issue I see is that you seem to have misunderstood what I mean by objective, so I will try to elaborate on this account.

I believe you will not contest that the reign of terror is a direct result of the French revolution, and has little to do with other factors. That is, the French revolution is the major reason for the reign of terror. Similarly for the following dictatorship. Other direct verifiable results include: unmanageable inflation, indiscriminate violence, property owners and professionals taking the spoils of the revolution, lack of resources for basic survival. I see only 2 ways you can question the objectivity of the above: you can question the facts themselves, at which point I'll just refer you to historical documents, or you can question whether these are direct results of the revolution. If you do not plan to contest this argument then you might as well agree that these are objective arguments. To be sure, there is a third option: contesting whether the above are positives or negatives, but that can be done only after the first 2 options are dealt away with.

Now onto the other main problem. If I understood it correctly, you have an issue with me calling your arguments subjective, speculative, and non quantifiable. I'll try to explain why I believe this is the case.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your main argument seems to be that the French revolution is a crucial catalyst for any human rights and equality movements across the world (including France). |I agree with that to a large extent. The main problem I see here is that you cannot quantify this effect. Sure, you can cite people that claim this to be the most important effect, but that is subjective and speculative, since there is no objective way to study what would have happened without the French revolution. I do not deny that it has had positive effects - you just cannot quantify objectively the importance of those on a larger scale. Thus, the main issue with this argument is that it is a non-falsifiable statement. For example I cannot objectively tell how important the French revolution was for Sweden or Norway's current state. There is no way to quantify this - you can't spit out a percentage or anything objective, so then we are in the context of an abstract statement that can claim that the effect is anywhere from 0% to 100%. The latter is quite important, since it makes this argument fairly unreliable, especially considering that your main point rests on the presumption that this percentage is large - something you cannot objectively show.

I believe I covered quite a lot of ground with the above, addressing multiple points of yours. So if you take away anything from my current comment, let it be the above, as I believe it captures the essence of our disagreement. Now onto more minor stuff:

You cannot contest communism as a product of the French revolution: the Jacobin cause was picked up by the Marxists and became a central element in communism. So it's not only about Hegel, and as far as the modus operandi in Soviet nations goes, it derives directly from the French revolution - both in terms of ideas and atrocities. In the same manner that you are making your argument about the importance of the French revolution in terms of human rights, I can make an argument about its importance for the violation of human rights in the face of the Soviet union: and we are talking millions of people subjected to unspeakable atrocities. But there's a common ground between these two arguments - the effect cannot be objectively quantified in both cases. So one has to resort to speculative subjective conclusions as to the magnitude and importance of the French revolution for the above outcomes.

I already addressed that, but I found it extremely jarring, so I'll quote it nevertheless:

Oh, apparently what people say about their motives is subjective, just like with the French Revolution.

That's a strawman once again. I clearly stated:

Worse yet, the importance and strength of the "learned lesson" is a subjective speculation.

.
You conveniently ignored importance and strength, on which basis the rest of your sarcastic statements were constructed.

The American Civil War can still be used as a basis for learning that scapegoating doesn't always happen, EVEN IF the conflict was not based on the oppressed rebelling against the oppressors (I'll get to that in a moment). There was large reason to scapegoat the southern rebel leaders!

I did not claim that there were not valid reasons for the victors to purge the losers. The issue is that these reasons are not the same both in character and importance as the ones in the French revolution. Hence why I called it a false analogy.

My problem was that you dismissed the possibility of success out of hand and ignored the successful revolutions in the real world... It just seems wrong on a fundamental level to say that it's doomed to failure when there is still a possibility of success.

That's simply not true.

Then allow me to correct you too - I do not dispute that it is impossible. I am arguing that the probability that you can get something overwhelmingly positive from such shitfest is very small, as history has demonstrated numerous times. You cannot keep betraying the goal you're fighting for at every turn and expect to achieve it.

The simple fact that I acknowledge that there can be positive effects and that it is not impossible clearly disagrees with what you state that I claim. Granted, how you define "success" is a fairly subjective matter. I simply disagree with the idea that you can quantify mass killings and stereotyping and singling out a group of people for cleansing, as success. I do not deny that this is my subjective opinion, however. I just do not subscribe to the idea that the goal justifies the means, especially not in the current context.

Now this is quite confusing for me:

The French republic is also a product of any other historical event that happened there.

False. Observably false. Again, people say things. You just call that speculative and refuse to listen.

Do you mean to tell me that you believe that there is no other historical event that has shaped in any form or importance what the French republic is? I hope not. What is your actual point here?

I'm also waiting for a better example from you.

I didn't claim I had a better example, you did, so please do not backpedal on this. You apparently know a better example that you're consciously not mentioning, I just suggested that you do so.

The reason that I cite the French Revolution is because I know that it's not the best example.

Here is just one article on the importance of the French Revolution to the changes in Sweden/Norway, specifically the 1809 coup that resulted in greater power in the hands of the parliament and the end of the absolute monarchy.

Did you even make the effort to try to read the thesis? Because I did try.

Okay, I'm out. You have consistently tried to ignore the statements of what people actually say is their motives. Instead, you have tried to say that these so-called "objective", material conditions are somehow more valid as the CAUSAL connection, even though you give no explanation. You're vaguely gesturing at "quality of life" as the explanation for a lot of this.

You surely realize that all of these statements are strawmans. You intentionally or unintentionally dropped/added or misinterpreted crucial parts of my statements to create nonsense arguments that are easy to pull apart. And I agree - those are easy to pull apart, but it's not what I am claiming, is it?