You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
3
LGBTQIAIDS on scored.co
11 months ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)
Regarding paragraph three, counter-revolutionary Rightists such as Bonald attacked both capitalism (that Marxist term didn't exist in his time, the word he used was usually if not always industrialism) and individualism (this term came from the early socialists, his contemporaries, Bonald simply adopted the term).
Rightism effectively died off not after the Revolution, but decades later along with Bonald and his fellow travellers.
I think it's fairer to say that the Revolution's Left is closer to today's 'Right' than Left.
Today's Left is closer to the aforementioned early socialists who had little to do with the Revolution: the likes of Saint-Simon, Fourier (an early proponent of both feminism and homosexualism), and Owen weren't prominent till the 1820s, and they tended to attack the Revolution from a position generally, but not always, to its Left.
In other words, the liberalism, e.g. Constant, Tocqueville (a much more heterodox liberal who also had both Rightist and radical sympathies) versus Leftism (e.g. the early socialists) politics of today indeed started there, but it was originally tripartite (thus, as earlier mentioned, Tocqueville overlapped into all three groups).
Skimming the remaining text, I can't find any errors.
In conclusion, don't believe that the Revolution was the beginning of this bipartite arrangement. Liberals like Constant and Tocqueville were *not* on the same side as Bonald. Once the counter-revolutionaries died off, it indeed essentially became bipartite, although people like Maurras and his followers would later appear who represented something like a temporary revival of the counter-revolutionaries.
Furthermore, don't believe that the Jacobins are precursors of today's Leftists, when they are more obviously precursors of today's Centre and pseudo-Right. Marx clearly viewed the Revolution as bringing about 'capitalism', not socialism.
The soon-to-be socialists obviously opposed capitalism. The liberals obviously supported it. The counter-revolutionaries also opposed it, but on different grounds than the socialists, such as that industrialism destroyed communities and families because people emigrated to cities in their efforts to partake in the capitalist economy. (The same phenomenon happened much later in Japan, where there remain today many 'ghost' villages consequent of it.) Marx conversely saw this urbanisation - precisely because it destroyed community and family, which he dismissed as 'idiocy' - and the consequent individualization as one of capitalism's good points.
Rightism effectively died off not after the Revolution, but decades later along with Bonald and his fellow travellers.
I think it's fairer to say that the Revolution's Left is closer to today's 'Right' than Left.
Today's Left is closer to the aforementioned early socialists who had little to do with the Revolution: the likes of Saint-Simon, Fourier (an early proponent of both feminism and homosexualism), and Owen weren't prominent till the 1820s, and they tended to attack the Revolution from a position generally, but not always, to its Left.
In other words, the liberalism, e.g. Constant, Tocqueville (a much more heterodox liberal who also had both Rightist and radical sympathies) versus Leftism (e.g. the early socialists) politics of today indeed started there, but it was originally tripartite (thus, as earlier mentioned, Tocqueville overlapped into all three groups).
Skimming the remaining text, I can't find any errors.
In conclusion, don't believe that the Revolution was the beginning of this bipartite arrangement. Liberals like Constant and Tocqueville were *not* on the same side as Bonald. Once the counter-revolutionaries died off, it indeed essentially became bipartite, although people like Maurras and his followers would later appear who represented something like a temporary revival of the counter-revolutionaries.
Furthermore, don't believe that the Jacobins are precursors of today's Leftists, when they are more obviously precursors of today's Centre and pseudo-Right. Marx clearly viewed the Revolution as bringing about 'capitalism', not socialism.
The soon-to-be socialists obviously opposed capitalism. The liberals obviously supported it. The counter-revolutionaries also opposed it, but on different grounds than the socialists, such as that industrialism destroyed communities and families because people emigrated to cities in their efforts to partake in the capitalist economy. (The same phenomenon happened much later in Japan, where there remain today many 'ghost' villages consequent of it.) Marx conversely saw this urbanisation - precisely because it destroyed community and family, which he dismissed as 'idiocy' - and the consequent individualization as one of capitalism's good points.