Is revolution ethical?

[Estro Felino]

I think at the same time you have to ask "Is maintaining the status quo ethical?"

If it harms people, no
If it creates social inequality, no

 

[joe1776]

It's not an issue of seeking perfection. It's an issue of recognizing the flaws of human nature and creating social systems that will mitigate them reasonably well for all our sakes. Governments are corrupt because humans are corrupt. All governments are somewhat corrupt because all humans are somewhat corrupt. But we have the ability to understand this, and to create governments and commercial systems that discourage corruption. And social climates that despise corruption (the corruption of greed, selfishness, and willful ignorance).

But we have to want to do this. And that's where we come up short. We'd much rather justify our greed and selfishness than mitigate it.

With respect, I don't think you have a handle on the problem. Governments aren't corrupt because humans are corrupt. They are corrupt and inefficient because they are poorly-designed decision-making systems.

To make an analogy to vehicles of transportation, the USA's government is a stagecoach designed by people like Jefferson and Hamilton, whose opinions we still value as Law. If we had the same system making our decisions about aircraft design, engineers would be limited by the opinions of Wilbur and Orville Wright and we would have bi-wing airplanes flying a half mile by now with eight passengers laying on the wings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Define Leftist.

Well, one hallmark of leftism is an emphasis on the commonality of workers regardless of which country they live in and a de-emphasis on nationalism.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, one hallmark of leftism is an emphasis on the commonality of workers regardless of which country they live in and a de-emphasis on nationalism.

Does leftism want 1 billion of Africans to live and work in Europe?

 

[Estro Felino]

I was taught in school that leftism sides against the banking élites.
So honestly I do not understand how they consider themselves leftists, those who side with them.

 

[Kooky]

No. You just invented that.

Then what do you think is the reason these revolutions?
Is it agitation by "foreign elites"?

Russian and French reforms had been ongoing for years.

Which exact reforms are you talking about?

The Romanovs had been busy essentially rolling back as much as they could of the 1905, down to making it known that they would have very much liked to return to absolutism if they had been able to get away with it. I can see no indication that the Russian Czar was even thinking about further reforms 1905-1917, let alone making material attempts at putting them into reality. Do you?

No doubt they had to be pushed, but successful reforms often take time. That is an unfortunate reality that no amount of wishful thinking will change.

Which goes back to my earlier point of the revolutions happening because said reforms didn't come in time, but rather were a classic example of doing too little, too late. By 1917, literally nobody actually wanted Nicholas II in power any more, not even the monarchists.

Louis XVI, on the other hand, made a good show but undermined his own public image by constantly trying to waylay and block his own reforms from happening.

Instead, in both cases you ended up with domination by social elites who decided they knew best and got to do what they wanted as they were the smartest guys in the room. [/QUOTE]
Social elites believing they knew best is the default state of civilized human society, that is hardly anything new that suddenly was brought up with those two revolutions you mention. Or are you specifically excluding the Russian and French aristocracy and old elites from your "social elites" terminology?

So they used force to capitalise on the situation to promote their own radical interests against those of the average person.

I'm interested to know how you managed to glean the interests of "the average person" from a time period where none of those interests where public knowledge to begin with. What did you use to get at that point?

Or are you assuming that the interests of the aristocracy and the old elites were identical with those of the people dieing of starvation and exposure due to bad harvests and the Russian winter?

The consequences were tens of millions of deaths and the continued oppression of poor people by (foreign) elites.

Who are these "foreign elites" you are talking about? Who among the Convent or the Directoire was "foreign"? Who among the Russian Provisional Government or the Petrograd Soviet were "foreign elites"? Pray tell, because that is rather surprising new information that I haven't been privy to so far!

As I said, what works in theory often doesn't work quite that well in the real world.

Including your theory that peaceful reforms are inevitable and therefore need to threat of violence to be pushed along, or that revolutions never make anything better for anybody, ever.

Not exactly an example of a successful revolution given people ended up being 'serf' tied to their plantations and being lashed by a black elite.

Do you believe that being freed from slavery is an intrinsic good or not?
I do, which colors my perception of the revolt naturally.

no problem

If it's "no problem" for you and you have no hard feelings about it like you claim you do, then why not just drop this nonsense entirely? I'll promise I will if you do it.

 

[Kooky]

I was taught in school that leftism sides against the banking élites.
So honestly I do not understand how they consider themselves leftists, those who side with them.

"Banking elites" are a term coined by conservatives and taken up by fascists to separate "good" from "bad" capitalists.

Socialism considers capitalism a system that needs to be abolished, which is of course anathema to conservatives and fascists, who are unable to imagine a world without hierarchies and masters.

 

[Kooky]

I thought you said you were a leftist, no?

They think fascism is a leftist ideology.

 

[Kooky]

If it harms people, no
If it creates social inequality, no

Indeed, it is unethical to treat people differently based on their country of origin.

 

[PureX]

With respect, I don't think you have a handle on the problem. Governments aren't corrupt because humans are corrupt. They are corrupt and inefficient because they are poorly-designed decision-making systems.

They are poorly designed because they don't account for the fact that humans are easily corrupted. And even the best designed systems will still experience corruption, because humans are easily corrupted, and humans operate the system.

To make an analogy to vehicles of transportation, the USA's government is a stagecoach designed by people like Jefferson and Hamilton, whose opinions we still value as Law. If we had the same system making our decisions about aircraft design, engineers would be limited by the opinions of Wilbur and Orville Wright and we would have bi-wing airplanes flying a half mile by now with eight passengers laying on the wings.

Unfortunately, we cannot, and even DARE NOT try to update our system of governance by changing the documented proscriptions because corruption is already running rampant, and the moment we open that door the new system would be "rigged" to the point of absurdity, for sure.

 

[anna.]

Not impossible, just there seem to be a lot of factors working again revolution throwing off oppression most of the time.

But now when you look at Poland you see an illiberal populist government in power. So the pendulum swung from communist authoritarian to far-right authoritarianism. So the revolution was successful, but what new thing did it make?

 

[joe1776]

They are poorly designed because they don't account for the fact that humans are easily corrupted. And even the best designed systems will still experience corruption, because humans are easily corrupted, and humans operate the system.
Unfortunately, we cannot, and even DARE NOT try to update our system of governance by changing the documented proscriptions because corruption is already running rampant, and the moment we open that door the new system would be "rigged" to the point of absurdity, for sure.

A new system could be tested in an advisory capacity, powerless to implement decisions until it has been proven. Think of the brain trusts that Franklin Roosevelt used to advise him during his presidency on the economy and later on wartime strategy. New upgrades of mechanical systems are tested before production. Why not test a new decision-making process?

 

[Augustus]

Then what do you think is the reason these revolutions?
Is it agitation by "foreign elites"?

Most of the answers to your questions were in my first post.

A more common pattern is:

1. People are badly treated
2. People rebel against government
3. Moderate elements divided and poorly organised. Better organised, hierarchical, hardline elements take control of the process
4. Hardline elements install themselves in power and start oppressing rivals
5. Oppression spread more broadly
6. People are badly treated


It's quite rare that genuine revolutions produce a significantly better outcome, and often produce a worse one.

Ones that succeed, for example The American "Revolution" were really more regime change than revolution. The "revolution" was driven by elites who wanted improved status, rather than wanted to fundamentally remake society. On taking power, the new regime largely maintained the same values and institutions as the previous one with relatively minor changes.

Compare this to the French or Russian Revolutions where people wanted to radically remake society according to their will and the application of reason, and found that what works "in theory" doesn't work in reality

Who are these "foreign elites" you are talking about? Who among the Convent or the Directoire was "foreign"? Who among the Russian Provisional Government or the Petrograd Soviet were "foreign elites"? Pray tell, because that is rather surprising new information that I haven't been privy to so far!

Soviet Union and Napoleonic Wars were consequences of the revolutions.

Including your theory that peaceful reforms are inevitable and therefore need to threat of violence to be pushed along, or that revolutions never make anything better for anybody, ever.

As I said, the answers to most of your questions were in my first post.

I'm interested to know how you managed to glean the interests of "the average person" from a time period where none of those interests where public knowledge to begin with. What did you use to get at that point?

It's quite obvious that the average peasant didn't buy into fancy ideologies of educated elites.

You think there was a major popular mandate in rural Russia for an atheist 5 year plan and the destruction of the church?

Louis XVI, on the other hand, made a good show but undermined his own public image by constantly trying to waylay and block his own reforms from happening.

Do you, for example, think a constitutional monarchy in France would have been a) more likely or b) less likely to produce a better outcome than what happened for the average person?

Do you believe that being freed from slavery is an intrinsic good or not?
I do, which colors my perception of the revolt naturally.

The point was that after much violence and many atrocities, most people ended up in a situation that was pretty much slavery where they were "serfs" bound to plantations and beaten if they didn't work hard enough as the state claimed primacy over the individual.

As I said it was better on average, but not exactly a roaring success of liberty and humanism.

 

[Estro Felino]

"Banking elites" are a term coined by conservatives and taken up by fascists to separate "good" from "bad" capitalists.

Socialism considers capitalism a system that needs to be abolished, which is of course anathema to conservatives and fascists, who are unable to imagine a world without hierarchies and masters.

That's not true.
Socialism respects Capitalists since Capitalists invest money to build factories. Factories means labor.
Socialism intends to socialize labor. That is, labor shall become a socialized resource to share.
And not a privilege granted by the elites.

Russian Bolshevism, or Communism intended to abolish Capitalism.

But Socialism is light years away from Communism, and it is saddening they are confused with one another.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you justify the people, when it rises against the élites who own all the powers of the consitutional field?

Here the take of the Bastille

Yes, of course. Hell, America and modern France were famously born from violent revolution. It has its place, for sure.

 

[PureX]

A new system could be tested in an advisory capacity, powerless to implement decisions until it has been proven. Think of the brain trusts that Franklin Roosevelt used to advise him during his presidency on the economy and later on wartime strategy. New upgrades of mechanical systems are tested before production. Why not test a new decision-making process?

Lots of things could be done. But none of them will be because the current system is so totally corrupted. We just had an attempted coup and half the politicians in Washington were and are supporting it. And all of them have been reduced to being toadies for the corporate sponsors and super pacs that pay for their campaigns, and their family member's do-nothing jobs, and their motivational speeches, and their big money after leaving office jobs corrupting their predecessors. And none of them dare even speak of all this wholesale corruption. So I think there's very little chance that any of them will ever seek any sort of positive reform. And if they did, they would only use it to even further corrupt the process of government on behalf of their wealthy sponsors.

 

[joe1776]

Lots of things could be done. But none of them will be because the current system is so totally corrupted. We just had an attempted coup and half the politicians in Washington were and are supporting it. And all of them have been reduced to being toadies for the corporate sponsors and super pacs that pay for their campaigns, and their family member's do-nothing jobs, and their motivational speeches, and their big money after leaving office jobs corrupting their predecessors. And none of them dare even speak of all this wholesale corruption. So I think there's very little chance that any of them will ever seek any sort of positive reform. And if they did, they would only use it to even further corrupt the process of government on behalf of their wealthy sponsors.

I share your opinion of our current dilemma; but you're assuming that the test of a new decision-making system would need the approval of the people in power. I think it could be started online, independently, and on a small budget.

For example, the entire government decision-making process doesn't have to be tested. The criminal justice system would be a likely place to start because changing it would not threaten the oligarchs and it's almost universally agreed that the current system is awful. So, an online executive advisory panel might prepare a brief mission statement for an online criminal justice panel judging murder cases. Here are just two sentences that might go into the mission statement:

(1) The criminal justice panel's main objective will be to protect innocent citizens from harm.
(2) The panel should strive to make the correct decision as consistently as humanly possible.

Both of the foregoing sentences seem like obvious objectives, but both are currently undermined in the USA by the Blackstone Ratio: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. While that goal has a nice ring to it, Blackstone results in a stack of laws which make it difficult for authorities to convict the guilty if they follow the rules. Consequently, authorities feel justified in cheating on the rules to get convictions. The current system stumbles right out of the starting block.

Ironically, a system that begins by trying to avoid convicting the innocent ends with innocent defendants pleading guilty to reduced charges because they can't trust the seriously flawed process to make the right decision in their case.

Imagine testing a trained, highly intelligent 33-member criminal justice panel, considering old murder cases with the names changed. Preventing convictions of the innocent could easily be achieved by requiring a two-thirds majority (22 of 33 panel members) to convict. This would also eliminate the vague concept of reasonable doubt.

 

[PureX]

I share your opinion of our current dilemma; but you're assuming that the test of a new decision-making system would need the approval of the people in power. I think it could be started online, independently, and on a small budget.

For example, the entire government decision-making process doesn't have to be tested. The criminal justice system would be a likely place to start because changing it would not threaten the oligarchs and it's almost universally agreed that the current system is awful. So, an online executive advisory panel might prepare a brief mission statement for an online criminal justice panel judging murder cases. Here are just two sentences that might go into the mission statement:

(1) The criminal justice panel's main objective will be to protect innocent citizens from harm.
(2) The panel should strive to make the correct decision as consistently as humanly possible.

Both of the foregoing sentences seem like obvious objectives, but both are currently undermined in the USA by the Blackstone Ratio: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. While that goal has a nice ring to it, Blackstone results in a stack of laws which make it difficult for authorities to convict the guilty if they follow the rules. Consequently, authorities feel justified in cheating on the rules to get convictions. The current system stumbles right out of the starting block.

Ironically, a system that begins by trying to avoid convicting the innocent ends with innocent defendants pleading guilty to reduced charges because they can't trust the seriously flawed process to make the right decision in their case.

Imagine testing a trained, highly intelligent 33-member criminal justice panel, considering old murder cases with the names changed. Preventing convictions of the innocent could easily be achieved by requiring a two-thirds majority (22 of 33 panel members) to convict. This would also eliminate the vague concept of reasonable doubt.

I think this is a great idea.

 

[Kooky]

That's not true.
Socialism respects Capitalists since Capitalists invest money to build factories. Factories means labor.
Socialism intends to socialize labor. That is, labor shall become a socialized resource to share.
And not a privilege granted by the elites.

Russian Bolshevism, or Communism intended to abolish Capitalism.

But Socialism is light years away from Communism, and it is saddening they are confused with one another.

Socialism literally means common or collective control over the means of production.
Russian "Bolshevism", by which you mean Marxist-Leninism, is just one of the many schools of socialism, but all socialist movements have in common that they seek to abolish capitalist control over the means of production.

This is why fascism is not socialism, no matter how they like to preen with their false, red feathers.

 

[Kooky]

Most of the answers to your questions were in my first post.

A more common pattern is:

1. People are badly treated
2. People rebel against government
3. Moderate elements divided and poorly organised. Better organised, hierarchical, hardline elements take control of the process
4. Hardline elements install themselves in power and start oppressing rivals
5. Oppression spread more broadly
6. People are badly treated

So you would cast the entire French Revolution, as well as the Russian Februar Revolution as the work of "hierarchical hardline elements"? I think that's a mistake and a serious inaccuracy.

There is a lot more to a revolution than simply "people are badly treated and rebel", and most revolutions run through distinct phases where different people sit at the helm.

For example, French Revolution infamously churned through factions and forms of government on an almost yearly basis, and the Russian Revolution is arguably a long continuum of political instability from 1917 to 1918 and beyond, with at least two very distinct changes in government (the February and October Revolutions of 1917, respectively).

I could expand on this argument if you're at all interested in talking about this particular leg of our discussion, just say when.

It's quite obvious that the average peasant didn't buy into fancy ideologies of educated elites.

It's quite obvious that none of us actually has a clue what the average peasant thought or wanted, because they did not write their thoughts and publish them in books or newspapers.

What we can do is look for indications based on their actions.

We can infer with some certainty, for example, that the population of late 18th century Paris was not particularly keen on the way Louis XVI was managing things, as they made their sentiment relatively clear with their actions in the form of protests and riots. How they wanted their government to be run, or whether they had even put much thought into that question to begin with, is anyone's guess, of course.

You think there was a major popular mandate in rural Russia for an atheist 5 year plan and the destruction of the church?

The last time Russia held free and open elections before the Bolshevik takeover, socialist parties (that is, the Socialist Revolutionary Party, Anarchists, and the Menshevik and Bolshevik factions of the Social Democratic Labor Party) won by a landslide, so there was definitely a strong tendency towards leftist politics - of course, that was while large portions of the country were also occupied by German forces, so how representative those were is an open question. But they certainly do point towards a certain sentiment among those in the population who had the opportunity to cast their ballots, and that sentiment was clearly going in the direction of some kind of socialism.

Czarist Russia, of course, never had any kind of universal suffrage, conducted no polls, and did not particularly care about the opinions of peasants to begin with, so we have practically no data at all from the period prior to the February Revolution.


Do you, for example, think a constitutional monarchy in France would have been a) more likely or b) less likely to produce a better outcome than what happened for the average person?

The point was that after much violence and many atrocities, most people ended up in a situation that was pretty much slavery where they were "serfs" bound to plantations and beaten if they didn't work hard enough as the state claimed primacy over the individual.

I have found no evidence whether this is an accurate depiction of post-revolutionary Haitian agriculture. Would you mind pointing me to one of your sources?

As I said it was better on average, but not exactly a roaring success of liberty and humanism.

I mean, the same could be said about the United States in that time frame.