The American Revolution was the result of some 40 years of agitating and politiking to change popular opinion, and ended with a ramshackle government where everyone hated one another and was entirely dysfunctional for half a decade, at which point a series of compromises no one was happy with and the only unambiguously popular figure in the nation came together to make the US Constitution, which everyone at the time hated. At which point we struggled for the next 20 years with lingering monarchist and loyalist sentiment, and then for the next 50 with anti-democratic and secessionist sentiment.
The change from a British colony to an independent country was (largely) not guns and fireworks. It was comprised of convincing people on the ground to take a different view than the one they grew up with; a slow, miserable, thankless process. And the part of it that was guns and fireworks was not nearly so glorious and momentous, nor spontaneous, as it is often pretended.
I did not suggest that there is anything glorious about violent revolution wherein untold numbers of human beings are murdered.
However, barring that violent revolution, the most powerful and wealthy country in the history of the world would not currently exist.
My point is that it is inaccurate to act like the slow progress of incrementalist democratic reforms is the only way for societal conditions to progress. If anything, those sorts of nonrevolutionary improvements, such as with Mandela in SA, are historical aberrations rather than norms.
The current global superpowers of the United States, China, and Russia were all formed by violent revolution. Secondary powers, such as Australia, Canada, Israel, etc, were formed through violent settler colonialism. And yet, despite this lack of democratic negotiation and mediation, these are the states that largely control the world.
Peaceful adherence to norms and consensus may have arguably established the Nordic model of social democracy and high living standards. However, in terms of global power politics, it seems to leave something to be desired. Violence has consistently led to a change in conditions, and oftentimes, an improvement in those conditions. If we disagree with that then we disagree with the essence of the United States itself - in which case, voting for neoliberal moderation with the Democrats seems to be missing the point entirely
If anything, those sorts of nonrevolutionary improvements, such as with Mandela in SA, are historical aberrations rather than norms.
Under that same logic, democratic governments are historical aberrations rather than norms. So why are you trying to apply a concept of how history ‘normally’ is to historical aberrations?
The current global superpowers of the United States, China, and Russia were all formed by violent revolution.
Formed by violent revolution against non-democratic polities.
Peaceful adherence to norms and consensus may have arguably established the Nordic model of social democracy and high living standards. However, in terms of global power politics, it seems to leave something to be desired.
Or maybe all the Nordic countries combined have less than a third of the population of the UK alone and didn’t even develop into democratic polities until the 20th century?
Nah, it’s gotta be because they didn’t found their prosperity on violence, not that stupid ‘material conditions’ stuff.
Violence has consistently led to a change in conditions, and oftentimes, an improvement in those conditions. If we disagree with that then we disagree with the essence of the United States itself - in which case, voting for neoliberal moderation with the Democrats seems to be missing the point entirely
“The US was founded on violence because of the lack of democracy, therefore, voting in a democratic system instead of using violence is missing the essence of America.”
The American Revolution was the result of some 40 years of agitating and politiking to change popular opinion, and ended with a ramshackle government where everyone hated one another and was entirely dysfunctional for half a decade, at which point a series of compromises no one was happy with and the only unambiguously popular figure in the nation came together to make the US Constitution, which everyone at the time hated. At which point we struggled for the next 20 years with lingering monarchist and loyalist sentiment, and then for the next 50 with anti-democratic and secessionist sentiment.
The change from a British colony to an independent country was (largely) not guns and fireworks. It was comprised of convincing people on the ground to take a different view than the one they grew up with; a slow, miserable, thankless process. And the part of it that was guns and fireworks was not nearly so glorious and momentous, nor spontaneous, as it is often pretended.
I did not suggest that there is anything glorious about violent revolution wherein untold numbers of human beings are murdered.
However, barring that violent revolution, the most powerful and wealthy country in the history of the world would not currently exist.
My point is that it is inaccurate to act like the slow progress of incrementalist democratic reforms is the only way for societal conditions to progress. If anything, those sorts of nonrevolutionary improvements, such as with Mandela in SA, are historical aberrations rather than norms.
The current global superpowers of the United States, China, and Russia were all formed by violent revolution. Secondary powers, such as Australia, Canada, Israel, etc, were formed through violent settler colonialism. And yet, despite this lack of democratic negotiation and mediation, these are the states that largely control the world.
Peaceful adherence to norms and consensus may have arguably established the Nordic model of social democracy and high living standards. However, in terms of global power politics, it seems to leave something to be desired. Violence has consistently led to a change in conditions, and oftentimes, an improvement in those conditions. If we disagree with that then we disagree with the essence of the United States itself - in which case, voting for neoliberal moderation with the Democrats seems to be missing the point entirely
Under that same logic, democratic governments are historical aberrations rather than norms. So why are you trying to apply a concept of how history ‘normally’ is to historical aberrations?
Formed by violent revolution against non-democratic polities.
Or maybe all the Nordic countries combined have less than a third of the population of the UK alone and didn’t even develop into democratic polities until the 20th century?
Nah, it’s gotta be because they didn’t found their prosperity on violence, not that stupid ‘material conditions’ stuff.
“The US was founded on violence because of the lack of democracy, therefore, voting in a democratic system instead of using violence is missing the essence of America.”
Do you even listen to yourself