Kevin's Watch

......the end of a process that began with the French Revolution and does this constitute 'the end of history' - at least of a certain type (ie the history of a world composed of Nation States with distinct ideologies, the expansion, friction and shoulder rubbibg between them being the the dynamic force driving events forward)?

I'll get back to you when communism falls. It's still struggling along in China and Cuba.

Cail wrote:I'll get back to you when communism falls. It's still struggling along in China and Cuba.

Fair point

I'd say the end of your period would coincide with one or both of the World Wars, where an attempt at a international legal body was created at the end of each.

In another point, you can still see the idea of the "French Revolution" at work in what we would call the Arab Spring (at least, from a Western Participation standpoint). There was also quite a bit of it in the various civil conflicts of Latin America in the past thirty years.

Yes Orlion - I had thought of the War of the World (Niall Fergusons name for WWI and WWII which he considers to be in effect one war) as 'the end point' for this section of world history (I'm falling into the [very human, I think] trap of wanting to 'compartmentalise' history, where in reality no compartments exist), but then gave consideration to communism and it's own failed version of revolutionary advancement of the human condition.

What has started this is a passage from Les Miserables where a charachter describes the French Revolution as the single most important event in human history since the birth of Christ. Well it's ramifications were extremely significant to say the least - it did seem to mark a sea-change in the way people across the world saw their relationship to the state and their position within it re their peers, but I'm getting the feeling that in the main this is now over. In this period the globalisation of the world has continued apace, to an extent now where the 'feel' of the world is now totally different to a point where the historical process of old now feels somewhat redundant.

We talking about ol' Francis Fukuyama here?

Anyway, there are still counter-balances to liberal democracy, for good or ill.

--A

I've not read F F's 'The End of History' (or whatever it was called) so I don't know if he saw the French Revolution as the beginning of chain of historical events which ended with the fall of (european) communism, but I'm sure I've read it was the latter event that he saw as the end point of history (as we knew it). Clearly history in the broader sense continues - it's just that the rules of the game seem to have changed. Orlions point that the ideas of the french revolution are even discernable in the 'arab spring' may indicate that the process (if it exists) is still at work in the world today in which case Hugo's contention that it was the most significant event since the birth of Christ does not seem so far fetched.

Yes, liberal democracy. I'm sure it's all good but sometimes these little doubts........

peter wrote:I've not read F F's 'The End of History' (or whatever it was called) so I don't know if he saw the French Revolution as the beginning of chain of historical events which ended with the fall of (european) communism, but I'm sure I've read it was the latter event that he saw as the end point of history (as we knew it). Clearly history in the broader sense continues - it's just that the rules of the game seem to have changed. Orlions point that the ideas of the french revolution are even discernable in the 'arab spring' may indicate that the process (if it exists) is still at work in the world today in which case Hugo's contention that it was the most significant event since the birth of Christ does not seem so far fetched.

Yes, liberal democracy. I'm sure it's all good but sometimes these little doubts........

And now to disagree. The ideas of the French Revolution did not originate with the French Revolution. It may be a nice arbitrary starting point, but I would say that if we are actually able to pinpoint the origins of those ideas, it would be mostly the American Revolution. It was in 1776 that a revolt from a monarchy system to one "by the people" was demonstrated as being possible, and from there it has been in effect in all the imperial colonies and most monarch states. The basic idea, that people reject the structure of government by the nobility, manifests itself in many ways. It could be a revolution for democracy, it could be one for communism... it could also be a degeneration into anarchy.

History ended when people gave up epochal thinking for the "anything goes" paradigm of postmodernism.

Hegel was right after all.

Doc Vader wrote:History ended when people gave up epochal thinking for the "anything goes" paradigm of postmodernism.

Hegel was right after all.

Heh...that's funny.

I don't think people ever DID "Epochal thinking."

I also don't think Communism ever rose [though what did took the name, so I guess other names really DO make a difference, if not for roses at least for isms and rising], so obviously it hasn't fallen.

Thinking might be the wrong word. It's more that epochs had their distinctive features and to some extend people used to share a common world view. It is easy to distinguish between, say, Baroque and Gothic period.

I don't see such a common set of paradigms in our post modern world anymore. You can believe what you want or not, you have every bit of artistic freedom, you can have any world view you like and there is no dress code anymore (apart from the upper ten thousand, maybe). This might be a blessing in most respects, but also leads to some kind of arbitrariness that somehow tends to render things meaningless.

From here on history does not develop anymore - things just happen. It's not a dialectical process anymore but chaos theory.

I tend to concur with Hugo. The FR ushered a sea change into history that was probably more significant than the fall of Rome in the west and at least on par with the global conquests of Islam and the discovery and colonization of the Americas.

peter wrote:I've not read F F's 'The End of History' (or whatever it was called) so I don't know if he saw the French Revolution as the beginning of chain of historical events...

I don't remember, it's been a very long time. (The End of History and the Last Man.)

Yes, liberal democracy. I'm sure it's all good but sometimes these little doubts........

Hahaha, I know how you feel. And sometimes it's these liberal democrats (not in the political affiliation sense) themselves that give me pause...

--A

Yes orlion - How did I get that wrong. I think Vadar is eloquently expressing something of what I mean though God knows I still struggle to get my head around post-modernism even after a lengthly thread examining the subject and two readings of 'Post-Modernism Made Simple'.

Am I alone in thinking that if Stalin wasn't such a powerful enemy of Communism, a lot more of the world would have joined the revolution? Including the USA and UK?

Stalin was the originator of the "Communism in one country" policy - earlier leaders like Lenin believed in worldwide revolution. Who's to say what would have happened if Lenin hadn't died and given Stalin the opportunity to take over the party (which wasn't Lenin's intention, from what I understand).

I'm not sure Stalin was regarded as an enemy of Communism by the western intellegensia of the day. The monster seemed to have them all entierly hoodwinked and it is only post his death that his enemy status has gradually emerged. There is a reason that certainly in the UK played a part in our not taking up communism in the post war period. The vested interests of the day were acutely aware at this time of the risks to their interests posed by communism, more so given the possibility of it occuring as a backlash to what was emerging about what had been going on in fascist Germany. Thus the improvement in the lot of the working man re wages, working conditions, possibility of home-ownership and health etc, were more a deliberate ploy to offset this threat by the vested powers of old-money, than actual gains won by the nascent trade union movement, although they were presented as such to cover the ploy up. So when Macmillan was able to say 'You've never had it so good', in the early 1960's he was telling the truth, but it was his set that had engineered this in order to protect their long-term interests which they considered in terms of generations rather than years or decades.

Oh no, I am calling Stalin an enemy of communism.

Like Murrin said, Stalin basically solidified his power by focusing on the movement in one nation. I am not sure if he was actually psychotically paranoid, or if he just wanted to unite his people behind a strong leader. But he put great emphasis on how the union was 'surrounded by enemies'.

When really, after the Industrial Revolution, worker/peon satisfaction was at an all time high all over the damned world. I mean shiiiiit, the damned FBI evolved from a private company of security guards that specialized in killing striking workers.

If Lenin hadn't died, or Stalin wasn't so batshit crazy, and reached out the hand of friendship to the other countries that were poised for some kind of revolution, who the hell knows how many of us would be communist right now.

Then again, until we have technology similar to Star Trek, where you can walk up to a damn wall and have it make you a cup of tea out of thin air, communism won't work. People are too greedy and someone has to be in the damned fields, growing food.

I heard an anecdote that Lenin's dying words were something like 'do NOT let Stalin seize power.'

Swing and a miss, Russia.

Make no mistake - Stalin *was* psychotically paranoid. Communism is one of those ideological systems that as you say, while sounding good on a piece of paper takes no note whatsoever of human nature. As such it is doomed to fail for humans, like every other animal ever created/evolved (whatever) will always at the end, follow their nature.

Strangely in the press a week or so ago there was a report that science is coming closer to developing viable fusion power, and this would almost create the problem from the reverse standpoint. What happens when energy (and thus production) becomes so cheap that virtually anything is available to anyone at no cost. What value wealth then - but people will still want it. And this will illustrate that in human nature *it is being better of than your neighbour* that constitutes 'being rich', whether it be owning a better bow and arrow and cave, or a better BMW and Mansion. The one thing the members of the current plutocracy will *never* stand - is the rest of us having as much as them. As Voltair said "The comforts of the rich depend upon an abundant supply of the poor".

peter wrote:Make no mistake - Stalin *was* psychotically paranoid.

Oh I was more or less just trying to be polite and not offend anyone there =p incase there are any Russian posters here. Those European countries really don't like Americans talking about their shady past.

I called a German guy in my clan a 'chore nazi' or something, 'cuz I mean, for good or ill, Nazi is a pretty common noun in America, when you want to describe someone as overbearing or the like. Anyways, he really really really didn't take it well.