= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DavidAgain comments on Orwell and fictional evidence for dictatorship stability - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (79)
It;'s probably also worth noting that the extension of the franchise in the UK happened in the context of violent revolution in France and protests and some riots in England - to my (limited) understanding, some of the motivation of it was to give compromises that prevented revolution. Similarly, part of the context of USSR and China reforming is external. One of the interesting questions in general is how much governmental change is driven by pressure from other countries: deliberate or otherwise.
You mean the French revolution, which happened in 1787, was what caused the Great Reform Act, in 1832? According to wikipedia:
Nope: I talked about revolution in France providing some motivation and context to extension of the UK franchise. No idea how this becomes 'The French Revolution in 1787/1789 caused the 1832 reform act'. You're implying that France only had revolution for a year or two, that the UK only had one reform act and that I'm claiming a clear line of causation: none of these are the case. As it happens, there was a revolution in France in 1830, shortly before the Great Reform Act, and others across the 19th century. Revolution was something of a general theme.
Again, this was about government putting forward compromises to avoid what happened, not backing it. The 1832 reform act removed the worst excesses of rotten boroughs which made the electoral system an easy target. The 1867 reform act aimed essentially to bring as many 'respectable' people on board as possible to make it easier to block the more radical calls for reform.
In terms of steadfast opposition: there's also evidence suggesting that the radical campaigns of the Suffragettes created more steadfast opposition to women's suffrage. Usually, dramatic pressures of this kind don't have a clear single effect. They increase opposition, provoke groups of support and create an incentive to find some way to drive a compromise.
Yes, the picture is complicated, and I alluded to that in the last paragraph. Still, the anecdotes suggest we can't accept "dictatorships are/will be stable" without demanding evidence.
I for one agree with that. It would be interesting, though, to tease apart 'stability as form of government' and 'stability as regime'. For a long time in many countries (including most of Europe) 'monarchy' was the stable form of government in one sense, but that doesn't mean things were actually stable. To quote Thomas Paine
"The most plausible plea which hath ever been offered in favor of hereditary succession is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas it is the most bare-faced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there has been (including the revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen Rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand upon."