Why do some reject the French Revolution?

Oct 2013
1,343
Monza, Italy
From what I have to hand I can see that Bakunin was impressed by pioneer America which in his eyes was socially free, utilising vast fertile open spaces for productive activity with little or no government in the European sense. He appeared to have nothing to say about the natives who were being displaced but that was normal for the European perspective at the time.

He condemned capitalism in America as it demanded high tariffs because it was unable to compete with European manufacturing. In other words protectionism propped up the state. This is where he came to support the Southern states as they had no manufacturing base so paid the higher tariffs. However he did argue that the social question that industrialisation was causing in Europe was increasingly applying to the United States.
I see your point about pioneer America as a model for Bakunin, but as far as I know he didn't support the Southern states, maybe am I wrong 'cause he changed idea after 1861, see the link at: https://libcom.org/files/BAKUNIN AND THE UNITED STATES.pdf, page 325-326 (sorry if I repeat myself).
 
Jan 2012
492
South Midlands in Merlin's Isle of Gramarye
I see your point about pioneer America as a model for Bakunin, but as far as I know he didn't support the Southern states, maybe am I wrong 'cause he changed idea after 1861, see the link at: https://libcom.org/files/BAKUNIN AND THE UNITED STATES.pdf, page 325-326 (sorry if I repeat myself).
My sources for Bakunin are limited to a recent biography (Leier) which devotes two pages out of three hundred to the United States, an old copy of Maximoff's 1952 philosophy of Bakunin and two old Freedom Press pamphlets articulating Bakunin's useful critique of Marxism. I agree there is no evidence he supported the Confederate States or the United States and I might hazard this is because of the word `State'. The evidence is that while Bakunin had sympathies with ordinary people who found themselves on either side of the American Civil War - a perfectly rational position - he had no time for the governments, the rulers and the slave-owners. It is fair to say that Bakunin was more concerned with European conditions and any parallel with such in North America.

I regret I do not see internet commentary in any way equal to properly peer-reviewed publications.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,983
San Antonio, Tx
Not possible to say better... Lincolm manipulated the Power as later Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler will do between 1917 - 1933.
Lincoln, our greatest president.

Secession by the South was a hugely divisive issue even in the South. I have deep suspicions that “votes” to secede from the Union were manipulated to the point where its greatest victim was the Truth.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,983
San Antonio, Tx
Well, Human rights came from older age.... Christianism for example and the School of Salamanca and the Laws of Burgos....and maybe sooner.... what French Revolution stablished was not human rights.. save if we understand as human rights.. the bill of robbery, extortion, censorship, mass murder etc.
The Bill of Rights is an American document, not a French one, which preceded the final success of the French Revolution by some 70-80 years, for heaven’s sake.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
6,116
The Bill of Rights is an American document, not a French one, which preceded the final success of the French Revolution by some 70-80 years, for heaven’s sake.
This must have been raised already, but the colonies didn't count. The colonies were always exceptions, and what went on in the colonies stayed in the colonies. That meant that while slavery was legal and fundamental in the New World colonies, slavery was illegal in Europe. Simultanously, if the colonies formulated a document like that, it had as little applicability as anything else going on in the colonies, not least since the actual situation managed to combine the Bill of Rights and slavery somehow.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,983
San Antonio, Tx
reactionaries regret their loss of status, some feel the blood let was too dear, and others think the churches loss of primacy spelled doom, in reality the french revolution was a pandoras box that let both god and evil loose on the globe, the russian revolution the gulags hitlers armies every crazy idea left or right let lose to wreak havoc? also we got the industrial age liberal democracy reforms , modern medicine clean water , the automobile and moon rockets. both good very very good and bad very very bad were let lose. was it worth the cost of course, who want to clean **** off some aristocrats shoes and then watch him rape your daughter? of course it was worth it. And thank you FRANCE MERCi BEAuCOUP.
France did not invent human rights; nor did it invent “inalienable rights”. That happened a good 70 or so years before in America. The French Revolution was important for Europe, I’ll grant that, but they invented nothing but did it half a century after it was already operating in the US..
 
Last edited:

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,983
San Antonio, Tx
Not possible to say better... Lincolm manipulated the Power as later Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler will do between 1917 - 1933.
Oh for heaven’s sake, please give up this nonsensical idea that Abraham Lincoln was anything other than an excellent president who saved the union, defeated the slave-owning south which attacked the north. When US Grant came over to the east and took command of Union forces, it was over for the South.

Comparing Lincoln to Hitler, Lenin, POL Pot or any of those other miscreants is just ludicrous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iraq Bruin

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,983
San Antonio, Tx
What was the difference with the ordinary white people of the North (in Bakunin's view)?
Try to keep in mind that Slavery was not the issue that motivated the North. Slavery was the issue that motivated the South, not because the North said it was going to end slavery, but because they saw themselves losing power in the future. If they had kept their mouths shut and their powder dry, they could have continued with their “peculiar institution” (even they knew it was wrong) for a while longer. But no, they rolled the dice and fired on Ft Sumter instead - dumb move. The Emancipation Proclamation came well into the war.

The South shot itself in the foot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lm1985 and sparky

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,692
Sydney
Well they knew that time was not on their side ,
the Northern states were growing faster than them
while the new states would be mostly slave free , thus siding against them

The civil war started in Kansas
 
  • Like
Reactions: martin76