What do you all think of the American Revolution?

I was wondering. Some say it was the first democracy that worked properly. And all that.

I think it was cool of the revolutionairies to put the finger to the English king George III. I mean he taxed the fuck out of them and he didnt invest much in the colonies.

And the colonies didnt had a voice in the British parliament. So the British could easly tax them.(Taxing without represention its called I think).

So that are some good things, but there must be some down things about it. Someone knows a couple? Let it be heard.

Bourgeoise revolution, so not much of a breakthrough in what regards to the emancipation of the oppressed.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Bourgeoise revolution, so not much of a breakthrough in what regards to the emancipation of the oppressed.

Bourgeoisie revolution, wtf is that? ALL revolutions were bourgeoisie in the 1700s. it was a bit step towards democracy!

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Bourgeoise revolution,

Explain why.

What, because they were slave owners? Many were poor farmers themselves, you know.

They had just as many problems with large corporations as we did. George Washington however was a militaristic bourgeois scum bag.

Liche wrote:

They had just as many problems with large corporations as we did. George Washington however was a militaristic bourgeois scum bag.

Why? Can you give some examples of what he wanted and did which is militartic, bourgeois and shit.

Well, militaristic is obvious. He WAS known as GENERAL Washinton.... plus he was a slave owner.

Tyrlop, that all revolutions were bourgeoise in the 1700s (which nonetheless is arguable) does not change the fact that it was a brougeoise revolution and that bourgeoise relationships iomply slavery, more precisely, wage slavery. A step towards democracy? I'd argue that many native americans (and for that matter several communties around the world) were far closer to democracy than those bourgeoise revolutionaires even centuries before that bourgeoise revolution.

CKX, it was a revolution by bourgeoise and petty bourgeoise to overthrow the power of a monarchy. In other words, employers and self-employers kicked out a government that taxed them too much and hanged it for a government that would take them more into acount. While keeping outright racial slavery.

Tyrong, with what objective were those poor farmers (petit-bourgeois) revolting?

What makes a bourgeoise bourgeoise? Having workers produce things that they will own and sell for profit and determining how much will the workers receive. (i.e Bill Gates, Warren Buffet) What's a petit bourgeoise? A person that within a capitalist framework works for himself trading goods and/or services for themselves. (i.e a pimpless prostitute or the guy with his store).

Tyrlop wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Bourgeoise revolution, so not much of a breakthrough in what regards to the emancipation of the oppressed.

Bourgeoisie revolution, wtf is that? ALL revolutions were bourgeoisie in the 1700s. it was a bit step towards democracy!

I've got to go with Tyrlop on this one.

History is a rather tricky thing and I like to, whenever possible, avoid entailing my personal views into understanding history. I like to appreciate people, events, and ideas for the context of the time that they lived, occurred, or were first thought up. By comparison to today, ZK is right; the American revolutionaries for the most part had pretty bourgeois elements to them. But the notion that monarchies are illegitimate because they do not, and frankly can not, ever represent the expression of the people's will was a fantastic idea for its time, and I think it needs to be appreciated.

I'm getting really tired of trying to make a good post, so I'll just sort of throw some stuff together. Basically, I like a lot of things about the American Revolution, like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, the seperation of church and state, and the basic idea behind the Bill of Rights. I think, as with all episodes of history, we need to pay more attention to the progress that the American Revolution made rather than the progress that it could have potentially made but didn't, i.e. I think we need to appreciate the fact that, to some extent, the Founding Fathers wanted to set up a governmental system that the people would be able to influence in some meaningful way, but I don't think we need to try to villify them because they didn't think that women and non-whites shouldn't be a part of the political process. The Founding Fathers weren't supermen or something; they were, just as everyone else is, a product of their times. They had their flaws.

I think we need to appreciate progress, however small, whenever it occurs. And, for me, because it promoted the core idea that the government's power must be limited, among other things, the American Revolution was an act of progress. It's just that it wasn't a very large step forward; it was more like a tip-toe, maybe even a baby step.

WeiWuWei wrote:

By comparison to today, ZK is right; the American revolutionaries for the most part had pretty bourgeois elements to them. But the notion that monarchies are illegitimate because they do not, and frankly can not, ever represent the expression of the people's will was a fantastic idea for its time, and I think it needs to be appreciated.

Tyrlop argued that it was a step towards democracy. And I disagree. All in all I don't quite see the great difference between monarchs and capitalists - both are illegitimate exploitators that perpetuate their power through delusion, cultural hegemony and coercion within the framework of a class-based system.

The great difference between the two is actually that in one God is the supreme power, in the other it is the Capital or nothing else but an artifical god with actual demonstrable material implications.

At that time and prior to it there were already in the world far more advanced notions on how society should be organized.

WWW wrote:

I think we need to appreciate the fact that, to some extent, the Founding Fathers wanted to set up a governmental system that the people would be able to influence in some meaningful way,

Defacto it's imposible that the people, so long as they are to some extent aware and unified, don't influence the way they're governed so I don't really see the ideological breakthrough there.

WWW wrote:

but I don't think we need to try to villify them because they didn't think that women and non-whites shouldn't be a part of the political process. The Founding Fathers weren't supermen or something; they were, just as everyone else is, a product of their times. They had their flaws.

I defnitely wouldn't vilify them. As you say, they were product of their times. Yet, that doesn't mean they were not a bunch of oligocratic bourgeoise revolutionaires. As for a breakthrough in liberties, well, I guess the repression of women and disackowledgement for blacks' rights denotes that they were not specially advanced for their time. Products of their time and standard by their time.

WWW wrote:

I think we need to appreciate progress, however small, whenever it occurs. And, for me, because it promoted the core idea that the government's power must be limited, among other things, the American Revolution was an act of progress. It's just that it wasn't a very large step forward; it was more like a tip-toe, maybe even a baby step.

Which in this context should be perhaps taken to a global scale at this time. Were there not quasi anarchistic communities in several places around the world where women were treated equally as men and where there was not only not slavery but certainly not racially-based slavery? If such communities didn't exist prior, at the time or shortly after the American Revolution, I'd agree with you. But they existed however small they were and in the regards we're treating here, they were more advanced meaning not much progress had been done, at least not a great one.

Quote :

Tyrong, with what objective were those poor farmers (petit-bourgeois) revolting?

Mostly against the exessive taxation, I beleive.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Tyrong, with what objective were those poor farmers (petit-bourgeois) revolting?

Mostly against the exessive taxation, I beleive.

So, those poor farmers were fighting agaisnt a law, not against the principles of the system to which they were subject making them merely revolting petit-brougeoise.

Exessive taxation as well as religious persecution, which was one thing most left britan for anyway. THere are many reasons they fought the war. And even if they were bourgeoise , they still wanted democracy, not the monarchy. Was it shit democracy? Yep. Was it thebest democracy of the time? Yep. I think it was you who mentioned the natives. The natives few and far between had a democratic system. A few did, yes. But msot in fact did not. Just a factiod, there, that what the cheif says goes.

in the mid- 1700 the free market where born, i think you are right when you say bourgeoisie revolution, because at that time the middle-class was a growing very fast, never have there been so many burgers before the 1700, at least in Europe. and that's why the feudal society (the society with festive peasants. etc)were forced on its knees and the capitalist society toke over, with freemarkets. the chains of the genus (genetic family what ever its called) , the society that sounds like this: if your dad was a miller, then you will become a miller, and your sons will also become millers when they grove up. now it was possible for people in the lowest ranks of the society to become something big, even though it was almost impossible for them it was now much much easier then it was before. it made it possible for the bourgiers and salesmen to become land owners, at that time alot of chateau was for sale, and alot of new land owners were introduced.
in countries were the rulers and monarchs tried to prevent this breakthroug was in france, NorthAmerica spain and germany(?), they had their "bourgouise revolutions" in spain with the Liberal General Riego that revolted against the king and started the first spanish republic, also in germany the weimar republic was born. but the most populare revolutions where proberly the American and the French.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Exessive taxation as well as religious persecution, which was one thing most left britan for anyway. THere are many reasons they fought the war. And even if they were bourgeoise , they still wanted democracy, not the monarchy.

My point is that it was a bourgeoise revolution and so it was not a breakthrough for civil liberties. Also, by definition, a system where the bourgeoise exists de facto cannot be democratic, supposing of course that we're going to go by the etymology of the word "democracy".

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Was it shit democracy? Yep. Was it thebest democracy of the time? Yep.

Point adressed above. I contend that it was neither a democracy nor particularily progressive.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I think it was you who mentioned the natives. The natives few and far between had a democratic system. A few did, yes. But msot in fact did not. Just a factiod, there, that what the cheif says goes.

My point when mentioning the natives was pretty much that elsewhere in the world and in several parts of what now is the US there had been more progressively ruled communities even centuries prior to the American Revolution, thus the American Revolution was not outsandingly progressive.

Tyrlop wrote:

in the mid- 1700 the free market where born, i think you are right when you say bourgeoisie revolution, because at that time the middle-class was a growing very fast, never have there been so many burgers before the 1700, at least in Europe.

Free-market? Funny concept. As for "middle-class", I don't see the pragmatic use of this concept within the context of this discussion.

Bourgeoise=/=middle class. Middle-class is a rather colloquial term to refer to the class with average or more or less fine living standards and with a moderate am mount of power within society.

Tyrlop wrote:

the society that sounds like this: if your dad was a miller, then you will become a miller, and your sons will also become millers when they grove up. now it was possible for people in the lowest ranks of the society to become something big, even though it was almost impossible for them it was now much much easier then it was before. it made it possible for the bourgiers and salesmen to become land owners, at that time alot of chateau was for sale, and alot of new land owners were introduced

I fail to see how this is a breakthrough. Now the slave can make other slaves his slaves. Hell that's some breakthrough.... No surprise Obama's election is seen by many as well as a breakthrough.

My point in a nutshell - in no way was it a breakthrough as it was the substitution of an oppressive system by another oppresive system. Better? I don't see why that would be relevant. 100g of shit in comparison to 20g don't stop being shit.

It would have been a breakthrough though if it had been collectivist. At least collectivist oligocracy is more rational than individualist. But it wasn't, so I rest my case. Plus, they were extremely racist and patriarchal whilst many communities of the same era, while small, weren't. Not a reason to vilify them but certainly to point out that they were not specially progressive. Hell, even the Russian Empire abolished slavery prior to the the US, and it certainly was not a racist regime and certainly less patriarchal.

russia was very antisemite, also the reds and the whites.
in the 1700s the freemarket was born. middle class is the same as a bourger, a bourger is a person who lives in a town/castle (burg) salesmen and such, famous danish burger: holberg (writer).

Quote :

My point in a nutshell - in no way was it a
breakthrough as it was the substitution of an oppressive system by
another oppresive system. Better? I don't see why that would be
relevant. 100g of shit in comparison to 20g don't stop being shit.

dont see it as a new society or something like that.
take a look at the class pyramide or what els its called.


Monarchs
_________
Bourger
____________
Peasants
________________

first of all the top and the middle is NOT the same. they have as bad relations as the bottom and the middle. populism is when the king is popular within the bourger.


Feudal society, there where no class society


genus feud
[Church - Crown]
[Salesmen family]
[family1] [family2] [family3]




the families fought in between each other in the early days, kings where democratic choosen by the chiefs of the families (aristocats?lol) salesmen where people with important possitions, warcheifs, and bussnismen. each family had their own possition in the society, and the feudal society worked like mentioned before, if you were a millers son then you would become a miller yourself when you groved up, and your sons would also become millers, if you were bussnisman then you become bussnis man. the king was elected from the chiefs everytime he passed out. untill sixteenhundredshit where the king manifistated himself and the noble could not choose the king anymore.

the big breakthrough im talking about is the breakthrough to the class society,
now the families on each class had something in common.
Crown
Bourger Noble
Peasants Beggars Craftsmen

the capitalist society was born when the freemarket was born, the destruction of the rod-farmery. in the seventeenhundredshit it became possible for a bourger to buy his own land.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

CKX, it was a revolution by bourgeoise and petty bourgeoise to overthrow the power of a monarchy.

And workers. I dont know why you keep saying it was only bourgeoise. You mind explaining there, I might didn get it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In other words, employers and self-employers kicked out a government that taxed them too much and hanged it for a government that would take them more into acount.

Its good, no? Why not make your own government which is more good for you and your circumstances? Is that bad? I dont think so. I'd prefer that then a monarchy where your colony doesnt have a voice in.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

While keeping outright racial slavery.

It was the 18th centery, you think people will stop that in that time? Thats not very realistic.

Tyrlop wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Bourgeoise revolution, so not much of a breakthrough in what regards to the emancipation of the oppressed.

Bourgeoisie revolution, wtf is that? ALL revolutions were bourgeoisie in the 1700s. it was a bit step towards democracy!

I think it was merely a step towards independence.

Independence of USA from Great Britain:
Americans who have been mainly opressed by a handful of British before the independence war, have freed themselves from the British so that a handfull of US citizens can opress them more.

Kenzu wrote:

Independence of USA from Great Britain:
Americans who have been mainly opressed by a handful of British before the independence war, have freed themselves from the British so that a handfull of US citizens can opress them more.

So a handfull of US citzens can opress who more?

Tyrlop wrote:

russia was very antisemite,

The Russian state, and there's a perfectly good explanation for that - jews make good bourgeoise, bourgeoise make good competition for monarchs.

Tyrlop wrote:

also the reds

Lenin and Trotskiy strongly disagree.

Tyrlop wrote:

and the whites.

Progroms. Russian state. Adressed above.

Tyrlop wrote:

in the 1700s the freemarket was born.

Which is relevant to the discussion because? And I insist, "Free market" is a funny concept.

Tyrlop wrote:

middle class is the same as a bourger, a bourger is a person who lives in a town/castle (burg) salesmen and such, famous danish burger: holberg (writer).

Middle class doesn't say much except is that it is the one that is not entirely fucked up but not the one running the show, to be colloquial. Other than that, the term makes no implications as to what it may stand for.

CoolKidX wrote:

And workers. I dont know why you keep saying it was only bourgeoise. You mind explaining there, I might didn get it.

If there are bourgeoise elements within the revlution, then bourgeoise are the ruling class, thus the revolution is bourgeoise. It's not matter of composition but matter of the interests pursued by the revolutionary movement in question.

CKX wrote:

Its good, no? Why not make your own government which is more good for you and your circumstances? Is that bad? I dont think so. I'd prefer that then a monarchy where your colony doesnt have a voice in.

It's logical that they'd want to impose a system where they'd be at the top of the economic food-chain instead of being just below the pinnacle. Good? I explained why I don't believe it to have been good in contrast to the monarchy. Plus "good" is subjective so it's not really entirely relevant.

CKX wrote:

It was the 18th centery, you think people will stop that in that time? Thats not very realistic.

There were seeral communities that did not have slavery, let alone racial slavery.

Yet, the fact that it was the XVIII century doesn't make it any more rational or acceptable plus it doesn't adress my point which is that it is not uch of a breakthrough.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

If there are bourgeoise elements within the revlution, then bourgeoise are the ruling class, thus the revolution is bourgeoise. It's not matter of composition but matter of the interests pursued by the revolutionary movement in question.

As a regular ass worker you still get taxed, and heavly, even their cup of tea. I'd be pissed. Its not the bourgeoise but also the workers.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

It's logical that they'd want to impose a system where they'd be at the top of the economic food-chain instead of being just below the pinnacle.

Yes ofcourse, very logical. But they want to be then top of their own chain, not of the world's one in that time.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Plus "good" is subjective so it's not really entirely relevant.

Yeah I am expressing my opnion in my posts either. While not thinking your always right.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

There were seeral communities that did not have slavery, let alone racial slavery.

Could you say which one?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Yet, the fact that it was the XVIII century doesn't make it any more rational or acceptable plus it doesn't adress my point which is that it is not uch of a breakthrough.

*XVII(1700 age) not XVIII(1800 age).
It doesnt make it acceptable now, but then it was kinda normal. Things change, and like every age there were diffrent things which were acceptable and not.

CoolKidX wrote:

As a regular ass worker you still get taxed, and heavly, even their cup of tea. I'd be pissed. Its not the bourgeoise but also the workers.

And you didn't get the point. It is a brougeoise revolution because its intention is to establish a bourgeoise system, a system where the bourgeoisie is the ruling class and where the ruling class within the revolutionary movement is the bourgeoisie, it is a bourgeoise revolution.

CKX wrote:

Yes ofcourse, very logical. But they want to be then top of their own chain, not of the world's one in that time.

Which is relevant to the discussion because ? And adresses my point how?

CKX wrote:

Yeah I am expressing my opnion in my posts either. While not thinking your always right.

Again, how is this relevant to the discussion?

CKX wrote:

Could you say which one?

Sure, hundreds of native american tribes all over the American continent and Cossack hosts for example.

CKX wrote:

*XVII(1700 age) not XVIII(1800 age).

Sorry Marnix, but you're mistaken:

0-99 - I. 100-199 - II. 200-299-III. 300-399-IV. 400-499-V. 500-599-VI. 600-699 - VII. 700-799 - VIII. 800-899 - IX. 900-999 - X. 1000-1099 - XI. 1100-1199 - XII. 1200-1299 - XIII. 1300-1399 - XIV. 1400-1499 - XV. 1500-1599 - XVI. 1600-1699 - XVII. 1700-1799 - XVIII. 1800-1899 - XIX. 1900-1999 - XX (Twenieth century, where all of us in WR were born). 2000-2099 (Twenty first century, where probably most of us will die).

Nice logic though, the same I applied when I was your age.

CKX wrote:

It doesnt make it acceptable now, but then it was kinda normal. Things change, and like every age there were diffrent things which were acceptable and not.

It was not acceptable 3,000 years ago, nor 500 nor 100 nor today and it won't be acceptable in 20 millenia. Specially when within the same and previous temporal frameworks other communities did not have those retrograde characteristics. Let alone acceptable but progressive, which is a more objective term.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And you didn't get the point. It is a brougeoise revolution because its intention is to establish a bourgeoise system, a system where the bourgeoisie is the ruling class and where the ruling class within the revolutionary movement is the bourgeoisie, it is a bourgeoise revolution.

There wasnt really a choice, I'd say choosing democracy in that time over monarchy is pretty sweet. And they vote for rich people, yes, BUT the rich people who wanna be pres only get to vote on if they do waht the people want, like things they do waht the people like, they are kinda forced to, otherwise they wont get voted on or re-elected.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Again, how is this relevant to the discussion?

Just saying, just sayin'.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Sure, hundreds of native american tribes all over the American continent and Cossack hosts for example.

Yes, not ALL groups around the world do it. Logic. Not all the people of the world will do the same thing or accept it. Yeah, but fact is that in the Thirteen Colonies then, it was acceptablte there. And native american's did use some slavery actually.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Sorry Marnix, but you're mistaken:

0-99 - I. 100-199 - II. 200-299-III. 300-399-IV. 400-499-V. 500-599-VI. 600-699 - VII. 700-799 - VIII. 800-899 - IX. 900-999 - X. 1000-1099 - XI. 1100-1199 - XII. 1200-1299 - XIII. 1300-1399 - XIV. 1400-1499 - XV. 1500-1599 - XVI. 1600-1699 - XVII. 1700-1799 - XVIII. 1800-1899 - XIX. 1900-1999 - XX (Twenieth century, where all of us in WR were born). 2000-2099 (Twenty first century, where probably most of us will die).

Nice logic though, the same I applied when I was your age.

You sure? U got me there tho, touche.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

It was not acceptable 3,000 years ago, nor 500 nor 100 nor today and it won't be acceptable in 20 millenia. Specially when within the same and previous temporal frameworks other communities did not have those retrograde characteristics. Let alone acceptable but progressive, which is a more objective term.

It was acceptable in some parts of the world, and I'd say it was more acceptable around that time. And it was acceptable in the UK and the 13 colonies then.

CoolKidX wrote:

Liche wrote:

They had just as many problems with large corporations as we did. George Washington however was a militaristic bourgeois scum bag.

Why? Can you give some examples of what he wanted and did which is militartic, bourgeois and shit.

Militaristic - Massacring the natives

Bourgeois - Using his influence to have the site of the new capital on land he owned in part, then selling the land to the government for a hefty profit.

You could call him trendy.