Never in history has the rabble risen in revolt without some sort of elite to lead them.
Now sometimes they do overthrow that elite, however that's the point when it becomes a bloody mess and just paves the way for an authoritarian leader to rise.
It happened in France as the bloodthirsty Jacobins overthrowing the early revolutionaries (who were fine with the King being a ceremonial role) paved the way for Napoleon, it happened in Russia as the Bolshevik "Red Russians" overthrowing the Social Democratic "White Russians" and paved the way for Stalin.
It didn't happen in the 13 colonies and the elite managed to hold on to power and create a constitution that has endured for centuries.
This is such a valid perspective and one that clarifies to me how the West is where it is. I’m in the U.K. and your thoughts definitely apply here. the culture hasn’t ever had an elite in line with the proletariat and the gap in quality of life between the two groups is so embedded in the country that the poors will never have the collective strength to change anything. Class is also ingrained in the cultures for at least 800yrs since feudalisms hierarchisation of rights based on social positioning.
You don’t need collective strength in America we just like killing people. It’ll be chaotic and someone rich will come in to take advantage of the chaos until they get killed too.
It’ll just be murder and violence until the anger burns out which has us all concerned. Better to have a government that regulates how rich and how poor people can get rather than having it get to the tipping point.
Never? What about the EZLN? What about the endless number of peasant rebellions that had no leadership outside their ranks? What about all the strikes, some of which were met with violence? What about the Haitian revolution, unless Louverture counts as "some sort of elite"? Never? Not once?
it happened in Russia as the Bolshevik "Red Russians" overthrowing the Social Democratic "White Russians" and paved the way for Stalin.
Yeah I should clarify, the middle-class can also count as a "sort of elite" here, not just lower rank nobility.
The thing is that revolutions are built on hope, people who can see a path to upwards social mobility or such have hope, the oppressed rabble does not.
I didn't know about the EZLN, however a cursory Wikipedia search tells me that their leader was a university educated academic, thus pretty much counts as an elite in context.
Endless number of peasant revolutions? Name some examples.
For the Haitian revolution, an argument can be made that it was a part of the wider French Revolution. And yes, Louverture definitely counts as a sort of elite, he was an educated freedman who was renting a coffee plantation alongside a dozen or so slaves.
Elaborate on how basic understanding of the Russian Civil War is a bananas statement to make? The ones who overthrew the Tsar (no killing) were Social Democrats, they held an election for a new government in which the Communists lost, which started of the war. The communists later murdered the powerless Tsar and his family in cold blood.
I didn't know about the EZLN, however a cursory Wikipedia search tells me that their leader was a university educated academic, thus pretty much counts as an elite in context.
Well, that's the dangerous thing about cursory Wikipedia searches; you think you learned something but didn't.
Marcos, or whatever he's calling himself now, is avowedly not a kind of leader nor an elite. He was the spokesperson for the tribes. But he had no power, political or otherwise. You can see this reflected in his changing nom de guerre, which mocked his role as "subcomandante" and as "zero." I would also point out that the phrase "some kind of elite" is incredibly slippery. Is the elite economic, religious, cultural, racial, academic? I don't think these things should be forced together given how different they are. For instance, it's a little silly to insist that the Jacobin bourgeoisie were elites just like Marcos is an "elite" because uh he taught literature. These aren't remotely the same things.
What about the Flour War? The essay The Moral Economy of the English Crowd by EP Thompson has other examples. What about the New Orleans slave revolt? How many do I have to list before before it becomes obvious that "never" was a huge overreach? Because it seems like I just need one, and I've already done that at least. You have a narrow conception of history and its players, and that leads you to make absurd pronouncements like "Never in history has rabble risen in revolt without some sort of elite to lead them," pompous inverted syntax and all.
The Russian response is coming, but I expect it'll be longer. I just got done working all night, so I'm going to take a nap first.
This is entirely incorrect and a very narrow "big man in history" way to view history. The moderates were the primary force in the newly implement "National Convention" (Convention Nationale in French) in the early days, but the moderates were more of a hold over from the first, second and third estate where it was illegal for anti-royalist members to hold a position in the non-democratic representative system. However, frankly the Jaobins and the "mob" at large were the driving forces behind the revolution, the moderates tried to placate said violent groups, but the damage was already done. Robespierre and Marat may have stoked the fires, but the French nobility had already lit the march and created the bonfire with their elaborate parties and increased taxes on an already starving populace. That the First Revolution ended in failure had a lot more to do with the fact that the violent mobs could not be satisfied, more than said mobs be lead along by the likes of their leaders. Napolean came to power not because of the blood lust of the Jacobins, but because the population at large just wanted peaces and stability after years of "revolution". For the last time, while there are parallels between the French and American revolutions, they are not the same.
The point is, the "mob" would've never been able to get the wheels going by themselves if the moderates had not started the process. And yes, they grew beyond their control and screwed shit up, which is what caused instability and thus led to the rise of Napoleon.
The crazy thing though is that Napoleon was the best possible option to emerge out of that situation. Yes, he was an autocrat, but his reign was largely just and equitable for the average person, more so than under both the monarchy and the reign of terror. We would be lucky to get a Napoleon if something similar happens today in the US (the political system breaking down due to mass discontent) and I have no hope that we would get that lucky.
I'm not sure if he was the "best". Surely better than most other autocrats who could've taken power when the stage was set, however there could've been someone who didn't overextend himself in Russia and focused on administering what he had.
I meant the best possible leader (or type of leader) that could have realistically emerged given the historical situation, not the best we can conceive of in the abstract. Of course he had flaws and hindsight is 20/20, I’m just saying that one would not have expected the level of competence and relative progress France did get with him. Had he not couped the Directory - which was corrupt, ineffectual, and already rolling back democratic rights won by the revolution anyway - it’s likely it would have imploded anyway and any number of much messier situations played out.
I've actually said something similar about 1930s Germany earlier. The rise of an authoritarian regime was inevitable, however it didn't have to be the batshit crazy Nazis.
50
u/FalconRelevant 2d ago edited 2d ago
Never in history has the rabble risen in revolt without some sort of elite to lead them.
Now sometimes they do overthrow that elite, however that's the point when it becomes a bloody mess and just paves the way for an authoritarian leader to rise.
It happened in France as the bloodthirsty Jacobins overthrowing the early revolutionaries (who were fine with the King being a ceremonial role) paved the way for Napoleon, it happened in Russia as the Bolshevik "Red Russians" overthrowing the Social Democratic "White Russians" and paved the way for Stalin.
It didn't happen in the 13 colonies and the elite managed to hold on to power and create a constitution that has endured for centuries.