In late 1700s France, do you think the French people could have just talked to the French nobility and achieved political changes?
You must log in or register to comment.
No, no one in history achieved their rights by “just having a peaceful talk in the marketplace of ideas”, because all governments are hierarchies that exist to benefit the top of this hierarchy, and with peaceful talks you achieve nothing but continuation of the status quo. What’s the point of letting the nobility, fascists, dictators, oligarchs, or anyone who is nothing but poison exist? They will continue oppressing others no matter how many times will you talk with them, they will only shut up if you show them you’re not going to tolerate them.
Sure, as long as the words they used were orders to line up for the guillotine and telling them when to stick their heads through the make-the-world-a-better-place hole.
Arguably, that’s what happened. The three estates (noble/clergy/commoner) were summoned by the king to an Estates General to discuss political changes, which led to the establishment of revolutionary government.
Kind of. The traditional estates didn’t provide an even remotely fair representation to the third estate, so the talking broke down before it even started, since the third estate just said “screw this, we are making our own convention” before the estates had actually convened.
Could have talked? Yes, there was a lot of talking.
Achieved political changes? No. Not on this earth and history.
What you’re asking is a counter factual. There is no way to answer this question either way. The thing with revolutions is that people suspect it is coming at some point but are still surprised when it happens. The recent fall of Assad in Syria - we’d all forgotten about that mess. East Germany celebrated its 40th anniversary with socialist pomp and circumstance and crumbled a month or so later. The French Revolution was not just about abandoning feudalist structures. It ran in parallel with famine due to terrible weather, a looming bankruptcy of the crown, inefficient leadership from the king, a new way of leadership expected by his subjects, (invented) scandals that were spread by what would become mass media, and the changes in thinking in the age of enlightenment with people engaged in virtuous one-up-manship. That’s after France had lent a helping hand to the American Revolution, not so much out of commitment to the cause but to point the finger at the neighbors across the Channel. You needed all of this in the blender to get to a point where enough people were radicalized enough to start chopping heads off. So even if they had found a negotiated solution to address the class problem, the revolution might still have happened, maybe a bit different, maybe not at all. Nobody knows.
Excellent analysis. I often remind people that every economy that has allowed the wealthy to rule unrestrained for long enough has undergone a socialist revolution, which resulted in horrible conditions. The only exception was England, which adopted a new economy invented by Smith (capitalism, the most misunderstood/misrepresented economic concept on the planet right now). We don’t have capitalism in the US, we have slid back to what it replaced, which is a class system ruled by autocracy and oligarchy.
I think people often fail to understand just what they are asking the wealthy to give up. Yes, they should give it up, and never should have gotten it. But they have the power to prevent the government from taking it away from them, and that blinds them to the dangers of revolt. For them those changes would feel similar to how the average person would feel about inviting a random homeless person into their home. Sure, most of us could make that work. We probably have the room even if it is a squeeze, and it might even benefit us if they help around the house (my parents used to take in homeless people and give them off jobs in the hotel I grew up in. They usually stayed for a few weeks to a couple of months. They paid for their room and board, gave them free meals at the restaurant next door, and an hourly wage). But most of us will never do that (including me) for a number of reasons. Same with the wealthy. They could give up their profits, they definitely have enough to never need another dime. But the concept is so abhorrent to them they will never even consider it.
They did try to negotiate, though. It’s where left wing and right wing comes from. The left wing in parliament was against the king, the right wing were royalist.
I’m going to say yes and no to that one. At the time they establish forevermore what is left-wing and what is right-wing, we’re past the estates general being called and I think also past the tennis court oath. For me, that’s already revolutionary times, they just haven’t cut Louie’s head off yet.
Before that, I don’t think there was much exchange between the second and the third estate. I am sure there were nobles who were willing to change things around. But it also wasn’t a case where the second and the third estate, and maybe even the king, could agree on something and that would’ve been the end of that. France was riddled by internal fiefdoms with their own dumb trumpian tariffs. Any relief for the third would have had to involve rationalizing the economy and there were powerful lobbies (like the farmer general) who wouldn’t like that. Plus, people were hungry and hungry people don’t think straight. And Louie would’ve preferred to stick his head in the sand anyway and other than maybe Necker none of his ministers satisfied the requirements of “forward looking.”
I guess, if you just ignore all of human history.
I can’t think of a historical event in which class change came about as a result of only talking.
Perhaps that’s because they wouldn’t be events. They’d be slow transitions.
If that’s the case I suppose all of human history has been changed by talking.
