From: "Dave Coull" <coull2-AT-btinternet.com> Subject: Ann Hansen Wrong About Revolution Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:30:54 -0000 Mike P forwarded a long thing by Ann Hansen which, while quite interesting in a way, contains so many things I have to argue with it's difficult to know where to start. So I will just have to do so, in no particular order, a bit at a time, as and when I find the time to do so. This particular e-mail is about the fact that Ann Hansen doesn't understand the historical meaning(s) of the word "revolution". > Of course, there was no revolution, There was no _anarchist_ revolution. There was no libertarian socialist revolution. But we anarchists do not have a monopoly on the word "revolution". Originally, in the English language, the word "revolution" had only a scientific or technical meaning. It meant a revolving, a turning round. And of course it does still have this scientific or technical meaning to this day. The _political_ meaning of the word first appeared in Italy, where you had a period of political turbulence around the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries. In Italian, the political use of the word still carried a sense of "turning around". It meant the overthrow of a ruler (but with the new ruler firmly in charge things would probably return to normal). The political use of the word was imported into the English language in the latter half of the Seventeenth Century. The first event to be called a revolution by its English supporters was "The Glorious Revolution" of 1688. This was their term for the overthrow of King James the Second by his son-in-law William of Orange. The supporters of the "Glorious Revolution" took the view that King James had been a tyrant who had usurped "traditional liberties"; so, for them, this "revolution" still carried the sense of a "turning around", because they thought they were going back to how things had been _before_ James. This use of the word as a "turning round" was still the case with "the American Revolution", which was, again, seen by it's English-speaking supporters as _restoring_ "traditional liberties". It was only in the second half of the Eighteenth Century, in France, specifically amongst French intellectuals and radicals, that the word "revolution" began to acquire the meaning of a more fundamental change. So when these French intellectuals heard that the Bastille had fallen to the mob, they knew at once what this meant: The Revolution had arrived. French revolutionary ideas spread to other countries, including English speaking countries, and _that_ was how "revolution" acquired its more modern meaning. But, accepting this more modern meaning, is the term "the Industrial Revolution" wrong? You could argue that the Industrial Revolution, although it didn't involve chopping the king's head off, certainly did involve a "fundamental change" in the way people lived. This does NOT imply that the Industrial Revolution was a "good thing". It doesn't imply that these fundamental changes were changes _for the better_. But leaving value judgements aside, there is no doubt that the industrial revolution did involve quite fundamental changes in the way people lived. > and the period of hystery would be better > termed as the Rise of Industrial Scale Slaughter. Why would this be a "better" term? There are plenty of examples of huge-scale slaughter _before_ the Industrial Revolution. So why is this a "better" term? People know, more or less, what is meant by "the industrial revolution". The process known as the industrial revolution began in England and covered, so far as England was concerned, roughly, the period from 1780 to 1830. Before 1780 most English people were country dwellers. After 1830 most were town dwellers. Before 1780 people worked in small groups, often family groups. After 1830 many people worked in factories. It was a very big change which happened within a relatively short period, historically speaking. It involved a lot of cruelty, and a lot of damage to the environment. This process of change is what is known as the "industrial revolution". People know this, more or less. These two words are shorthand for detailing everything that the process involved. So why should using FIVE words, where TWO would do, be "better"? Dave Coull
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005