From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Fri Aug 31 2001 - 11:34:51 MDT
Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
>
> > > Zero writes
> > >
> > > > Unrestrained capitalism (think early industrial US) leads to huge
> > > > discrepancies in the distribution of wealth, which leads to social
> > > > unrest (think the early labor movement) and even upheaval (think
> > > > French Revolution).
> >
> >Uh, the French Revolution was a revolution against the ruling
> >class, against aristocracy and subjection by force and the lack
> >of freedom to one's own life and to rise. It was in no way a
> >revolution against capitalism, unrestrained or otherwise.
>
> Of course, but it *was* a revolution against the "huge discrepancies in the
> distribution of wealth." Which was my point.
No it wasn't. Your point was that the French Revolution was a revolt
against the 'huge discrepancies of wealth produced by capitalism'. This
is a false claim, since the vast majority of the wealth owned by those
in the ruling class was feudalistically gained: by conquest and
confiscation. In reality, the French Revolution occured specifically
because there was a rising middle class of earned wealth that had no
voice in government. It was that unfranchised middle class that created
the French Revolution.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:17 MST