Anya 
anya@is.acute.cat
Show content
At some point, particularly in leftish circles, it became trendy to dismiss the American founding as a mere ‘bourgeois’ revolution in favor of later revolutions in Europe and I think this is a mistake. There quite possibly is no French Revolution without the American one; the cross-pollination of ideas is obvious.
Not to be all Marxist here¹ but ‘bourgeois’ is a term of art here that absolutely applies to those revolutions mentioned and also the 1848 revolutions. (Also i don’t remember if Marx claimed this himself but it is entirely compatible with communism to claim that capitalism is better than the manorial system that came before.)
¹ i like the bit of Marxism about the classless stateless society and am not particular about the rest.
3
0
0
Triss Hellsite
sys64738@www.librepunk.club
Show content
@anya this sounds really funny because so much ink has flown about the french revolution being bourgeois
0
0
1
streetlight 🏴
streetlite@www.librepunk.clubShow content
@anya re: "it is entirely compatible with communism to claim that capitalism is better than the manorial system that came before", following the orthodox marxist hegelian view, you have a succession of economic regimes that bear a dialectical relation, and this succession is fixed because of this relation: each regime contains inherent contradictions and resolving those inherently gives rise to a specific successor regime, which is to say that for marx, feudalism "contains capitalism within it" and capitalism "contains communism within it" and that's the only possible way the progression can go. If you're a leninist then of course lenin disproved this by doing the october revolution and skipping over the capitalist phase. but depending on your perspective, "better" is a poorly defined term, but capitalism is further along the road to communism
1
0
1
Show content
@streetlite Mhm, i agree that the orthodox Marxist view consists of one system needing to follow and be followed by the next. But i don’t think that this implies necessarily a moral improvement in the conditions at that point in time; things could get worse before they get better. That conditions under capitalism are better is a claim i’m willing to make, and one i believe is compatible with Marxism but i am not sure Marx himself literally made.
1
0
0
Show content
So I provide below an annotated copy of the bill of grievances, with links to note where our current government is doing many of the very things for which we declared, 250 years ago, that it was not merely right, but a duty to throw off British governance. …
yes! ha ha ha yes!!
… Of course today we have no need of revolution, because we have elections and so may freely change our leaders or even alter the form of our government without violence.
oops. you sure about that buddy?
1
0
0
/Cinny 
streetlight 🏴
streetlite@www.librepunk.clubShow content
@anya mhm, there's arguments both ways, alienation is much greater under capitalism and marx' discussion of it to me does have moral tones, but also capitalism is a more "efficient" economy and for orthodox marxism there's certainly a sense that more production = more moral, and communism is the best because it is the most efficient system (fwiw it's also an early anarchist angle you can find in e.g. kropotkin - people living in an age of starvation were very optimistic that better technology would bring a post-scarcity society, and then the only thing left to be done is distribute wealth properly).
0
0
1
Show content
@charlotte indeed. only for the people who vote for more empire of course :)
0
0
0