File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0301, message 107


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



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005