America Is Becoming a Bit More Liberal. That's Pretty Unusual Six Years Into a Democratic Presidency

[RainDog]

93. well...

it seems to me that history is driven by those who are motivated to make change because they have a stake in the current system yet are left out of the power/decision making.

Emmanuel Todd has written about this in terms of demographics. You want to know which nation will have a revolution? Look at the un/under employment figures for the college educated/trained. Look at the level of education for women and the birth rate (which falls with the education of women.) Those women want a seat at the table as well.

That's how he was able to predict the fall of the Soviet Union way back in the 1970s. He predicted the U.S. empire would fall, as well, if we do not get out of the business of "micro-wars" on smaller nations (i.e. kicking sand in the face of the little guy) because we perceive it is in our economic interest to do so.

This is one reason I said Obama has done something good - to scale back that sort of action by the U.S.

But, sure, the sans culottes provided the raw mass to force the King to return to Paris when he tried to flee (he would've gone on to take the side of the royals in other empires in Europe, many of them his "cousins", who declared war on France soon after the revolution.) So, the reason he was beheaded was so that he could not be restored under the old system - but it was the third estate that made that happen, not the sans culottes. Robespierre argued for regicide.

The sans culottes were not, generally, put under the guillotine. It was, again, the aristocracy and clergy, first, to get rid of them because of their opposition to revolution, then factions within the revolution (i.e. Girondins v. The Mountain, or Jacobins) - the leaders, not the followers were the ones who were executed.

Whoever told you French peasants were leaders of the French revolution is wrong. They're also wrong about who was executed as part of various purges.

This is the sad reality. The peasanty were gun fodder, but at no time were they leaders of the French Revolution. Again, this is how it goes - whether the lower classes are used to fight wars for state power or for revolution. This is ALWAYS how it goes.

So, you would have to ask yourself - what is motivation for someone in that situation to do something - b/c, if they know about history, they know they will not be included in power-sharing after a revolution. The only thing that makes it worthwhile to "rise up" is if they receive enough benefit in their society to do so.

This is why I say it's up to the wealthy. They can be the thing that makes it worthwhile to rise up by their non-response. Most people don't want to fight. Most people just want to be able to live their lives with their loved ones and friends. But if conditions are such that its impossible to survive - they will push back - but only after the middle/upper classes motivate them to take down the existing power structure by the promise of something a little better, at least.

Here's what happened, also, during the French Revolution. The revolutionaries confiscated the wealth of the aristocrats and the bishops (and other wealthy clergy). People took this wealth, that was in "things" like silver candelabras, etc. and sold them to people in other nations - this is how the revolutionaries, in part, financed the war that the aristocrats and royals in greater Europe declared.

They insured the end of their empires by this action. Napoleon is a controversial figure - but he, more than any sans culotte, etc. changed and revolutionized all of Europe by creating laws for universal education, standard measurements for trade, by putting his guy in power in various nation-states, etc. There was a backlash to him, too, but the changes he made were so great, and were so beneficial, ultimately, to the most people across Europe that he won the revolution everywhere, even tho there were periods of restoration.

Modern Europe exists because of Napoleon, not because of peasants.