Why do we glorify the French revolution when it was a liberal, capitalist revolution over feudalism?

Why do we glorify the French revolution when it was a liberal, capitalist revolution over feudalism?

Surely we should hate both sides?

Other urls found in this thread:

bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive
businessinsider.com/things-harder-than-getting-to-harvard-2014-9#harvard-may-not-be-your-top-choice-though-16
academic.oup.com/ereh/article/17/1/1/493819/The-surprising-social-mobility-of-Victorian
blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/29/why-a-medieval-peasant-got-more-vacation-time-than-you/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

But that's why it was good.

Because capitalism is a necessary and desirable move from feudalism.

Capitalism is a progression from feudalism, learn 2 Marx

Why do we glorify the February revolution when it was a liberal bourgeois revolution over tsarism?

because Dialectics, son

I don't wanna icepick trots for this post

"progression" You know the working class actually worked markedly less under feudalism than capitalism and ate more.

I know historically we needed to go from one to the other, just food for thought

"I didn't back any horse so I'm the real winner of this race, I mean I didn't lose, y'know"

marx was wrong (about that)

Left communists backed the October revolution, the Bolsheviks and his split with the provisional government altogether.

You're a stupid faggot. Maybe learn a bit about the revolution.

Fucking liar. Feudalism is better than capitalism.

...

Into Marx black cat, peasants couldn't abolish class society so their revolution was coopted by the bougies.

Under feudalism you had half of the year off and you were guaranteed employment; There was also a sense of community instead of the atomized society we have now.

Because of the Enlightenment, and the Progress that it brought with it.

The material standard of living was also lower and modern medicine didn't exist. You also didn't have any opportunity to be anything besides the social position you were born into–an enterprising kulak could perhaps marry into a downwardly mobile aristocratic family and move up that way but you didn't have the freedom to try to get wealthy by means of your own labor or capital investment. You had to give a fixed proportion of labor, produce or money rent to the lord even in bad times because it was "custom"

well, first of all, the transition from feudalism to capitalism is an important stage in the development of human societies regardless, and secondly, the peasants and (admittedly small) class of proletarians also revolted. in addition, left-wing ideas could not exist without liberal ideas of bourgeoise democracy. remember, this was 1792, not 1992.

"Capitalism gave us Iphones lmao" tier argument.

As opposed to today, where Chinese factory workers become millionaires and the people in the american rust belts go to harvard right? The bourgeoise keep the opportunities for themselved.

Literally the same as capitalism; Are you implying people don't have to pay rent or bills when they're unemployed.

Hell, it's even worse, because at least you weren't thrown into the streets if you couldn't pay. Loads of people had their homes foreclosed during the crisis.

Because Holla Forums hasn't read the spookbusting of de maistre.

eh it was actually relatively easy to fuck off to the city because lol who can fucking keep track of that shit. It's just once you were in the city the "freedom" to try to get wealthy didn't actually mean you had any guarantee of it being realistically possible… not unlike today.


actively a worse proportion (otherwise they never would have switched from feudalism to capitalism)
Under feudalism you owed a set amount of your own labor to your landlord but kept the rest. Under capitalism your boss owes a set amount of your own labor back to you but keeps the rest.

Capitalism was a mistake. Feudalism sucked too but honestly a neofeudalist system would probably be a better starting place for a functional socialist society than anything we have now. Name one reason why I'm wrong besides "grandpa karl said so"

Yeah but its not wrong, feudalism wasn't going to invent steam engines or build factories. There literally wasn't an alternative at the time because you weren't going to be able to build socialism and in fact socialism arises from an analysis of the short-comings of industrial capitalism which the vast majority of socialist thinkers recognized as being more advanced then what proceeded it.

You know there are cases of both happening right? A lot of Chinese millionaires are reportedly self-made and from humble origins and its not uncommon for an uncommonly brilliant student from a rust belt town making it to Harvard. Exploitation is the key problem of capitalism and not whether it has more or less social mobility but that doesn't change the fact that capitalism at one time offered more opportunities for common people then feudalism. That's part of why society changed over it wasn't just some big old conspiracy of the merchants and lawyers; a fairly significant stratum of the common people had to see the benefits of it for the system to work.

The difference being if you work really hard you can buy property and let it out yourself and earn a rent. You didn't need some spooky title; under feudalism you just got rent because you were born into the aristocracy and that wasn't just an unfortunate facet of the system but something that was sanctified.

In a pure market situation if rents go too high eventually someone becomes interested in letting out or acquiring property to let out at a competitive price. You also know that during the French revolution that aristocratic property was broken up and sold off or legally made the property of the peasants right? They also broke up the codes that made people serfs in Central Europe etc.


Not even Napoleon could reverse that change if he had wanted to and that was historically progressive and beneficial to the growth of democracy and capitalism.

Likewise, Enlightenment economists wanted to eliminate the remnants of what they saw as the feudal legacy of rent and usury as Michael Hudson notes. The age of revolution was a comprehensive social revolution and it lento reforms in both the treatment of tenants and debtors in the Western world that were unprecedented anywhere else in the world.

You do know people were tortured for not paying their rent by lords right? Or put through sham courts on the Lord's estate ran by the Lord himself. Starvation wasn't uncommon either, economic historian Robert C. Allen estimates that 40% of the French population was too calorically deprived to do more then 3 hours of light work prior to the French revolution.

No wonder they didn't have the le prodesdant worg ethic :DDDD that Holla Forums is always bitching about because a large part of the population was not physically capable of working an 8 hour day or longer.

No, it is uncommon. Social mobility is basically nonexistent, any actual statistical analysis of society confirms this.

Also I should note that capitalism got started in Britain precisely because British wages were the highest in the world during the 17th-18th centuries as Robert C. Allen shows. British capitalists became interested in machinery and new techniques because British wages were 3 times higher then Indian wages. Adult male English workers ate meat fairly regularly, even daily, and had a fair caloric intake and that allowed them to work the hours that they did. It also gave them an incentive to work hard and to support, or at least not oppose too strongly, the change-over to capitalism.

So, actually the opposite happened of what you might expect if you did not take a dialectical view of things, capitalism took root in the country where conditions were best for workers. The British experience was also replicated in the US and Britain's settler-colonies due to the high-wages paid in those nations.

So, yes, I'd say it was historically progressive for its time in the societies that it took root and in comparison to the alternative which was to stagnate or decay under feudalism.

wether it is better or not doesn't matter, what matters is capitalism's efficiency and it's ability to create industrialization, automatization, mechanization and enable a post scarcity society

First off, where in particular are we talking about?
Because Utah has Denmark-tier social mobility:
bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive

Secondly, the data I've seen indicates that most American millionaires do not inherit their wealth even if they often have middle-class or labor aristocrat origins. Thirdly, not to minimize the obstacles but there are things out there that are harder then getting into Harvard: businessinsider.com/things-harder-than-getting-to-harvard-2014-9#harvard-may-not-be-your-top-choice-though-16

Fourthly, and most importantly, when I said capitalism was progressive I meant in its historic context and not necessarily the late stage imperialist capitalism we live in today.

Lassiez-faire Victorian England for instance had a surprisingly high social mobility on par with England in the 1970s. That mattered because it was offering opportunities to common people that decaying feudal societies either would not or could not.
academic.oup.com/ereh/article/17/1/1/493819/The-surprising-social-mobility-of-Victorian

As someone who lives here, Utah is fucking weird and you shouldn't take SLC as being representative of the whole state.

pure ideology

proofs?

Is that fat little dickhead still making videos where he does nothing but ramble on incoherently about bullshit he doesn't understand?

A lot of marxian anons ITT have been saying that capitalism's a necessary stepping stone from feudalism onto communism. I don't necessarily agree, but I still love the French revolution. This is because it shows the transformative power of one class (the bourgeoise) seizing control over the economic and political life.

Because it was a liberal, capitalist revolution over feudalism.

Ever heard of dialectics?

The progressive view of history is gay and unrealistic. Things aren't necessarily always getting better. History is most likely cyclical. Communism is not necessarily the antithesis to capitalism. What we're going to see is something akin to post-capitalism. Probably a technocratic social democracy with UBI.

It probably wasn't going to build factories (good riddance, honestly) but I'm not convinced under a world where the nascent bourgeois were magically killed every time they started moving towards capitalism wouldn't have ANY advancement in production. After all, windmills still got built, either because the Lord decided that was what the labour he was due was going to get used for or every would just get together to build it.
You would probably similarly see investment by lords/pooling of resources to buy That Newfangled Cotton Gin

Because it was a liberal, capitalist revolution over feudalism.

blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/29/why-a-medieval-peasant-got-more-vacation-time-than-you/

...

holy fuck at least try to read, this is like the first 30 pages of the communist manifesto

Did both of you buy into this meme ?

t. porky

Who gives a shit, unions/ councils are superior.

No, not really, considering the aspect of job security, and services provided by guilds to their members.

jesus christ, read a book or something

how numerous was the proletariat under feudalism?

I actually hate capitalism more then feudalism.
I prefer feudalism over both capitalism and socialism tbh.
but i recognize that we can never go back to feudalism and i prefer socialism over capitalism atleast

Unregulated capitalism is definitely shit and arguably worse than feudalism, but Keynesianism and social democracy are objectively better, and wouldn't be possible without the French and other bourgeois revolutions. Not to mention that under feudalism most people are literally not allowed to leave the land, at least under capitalism you have a greater degree of personal agency. Furthermore there are more democratic elements under liberalism, which even proles are capable of using to their advantage occasionally if they are motivated and organized enough. As Marx said, democracy leads to socialism.

If you like feudalism then why the Nork flag? They're more of an absolute monarchy tbh.

the enlightenment was a misstake

Monarchy =/= Feudalism

I hate capitalism more than feudalism too tbh although I like socialism more than feudalism. With that said, I have no problem with a people's monarchy since it's not necessarily synonymous with feudalism as the above user stated here:

Feudalism was far more authentic an a Heideggerian sense than capitalism is. That alone makes it closer to being morally correct.

Monarcucks should have prevented enclosure.

funny thats literally my ideology with the simple addition that I believe that a post-capitalist socialist society will eventually emerge as technology and industrialization progresses

A little bit tangential to the thread topic but does anyone have the S U C C edit with Robespierre? There are two versions and I'm looking for the more edited one

Not very numerous at all. There's a reason why Marxists regarded the proletariat as a social class that's a product of modern capitalism.

...

nice fiction kiddo

It's closer to the truth then the wheat-FALC fantasies that people in this thread are spewing in order to idealize feudalism.

I mean you could say that the groundworks of the proletariat was the propertyless lumpen and vagabonds produced by the continual expropriation done by the landlords from the renaissance onwards. But I only base that on how I understood the last part of capital vol. 1 so I'm not sure of the finer details.

Nah its in Mutual Aid. You used to have to give say 3 days labour a week to your lord, (which tended to be around 8 hours) everything you made for yourself besides that you got keep take away taxes. It worked out less hours overall than working 6 days a week 14 hours a day for your boss in a factory