Much more nuanced than expected. Okay, yes, the American revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and historically progressive in the sense that it unshackled the forces of production compared to continued British rule. It was still far less progressive and far less admirable than the French revolution, though.
Diva was incorrect in claiming that it was a counterrevolution, since there was no preceding revolution to react against, but the rest is all perfectly accurate.
The thing is that revolution vs. counter-revolution is a VERY important distinction to make here. In characterizing it as a counter-revolution, and, as acknowledged by other comments by the same user, characterizing it as regressive, the point implied by the facts mentioned is not “The American Revolution was deeply flawed”, which I would never dispute, but “The American Revolution was backwards and a negative thing.” The flaws and hypocrisies of the American Revolution ran deep, but it was also a legitimate struggle for bourgeois democracy (complete with the start of privileging of capitalist over feudal modes of production) against a distant imperialist power which denied self-determination to millions who lived under their rule.
That I brought up the American Revolution in the context of the idea of getting rid of the Constitution - with me supporting the idea of scrapping the Constitution despite the danger by that even the ones who wrote it up had to struggle with the thought of "This could get worse, but at some point, we have to take that chance or it will never get better" - and it gets ‘refuted’ by someone claiming it was counter-revolutionary and a bad example (for choosing to roll the fucking dice???) is just campist dribble from that user, whom I am unfortunately familiar with.
French Revolution was much a better bourgeois revolution though, I agree.
I should pay more attention when posting, clearly. I see someone say “tankie” and I fire up the tank, but it appears that our disagreements aren’t that substantial. Unless you’re a trotskyist, of course…
Much more nuanced than expected. Okay, yes, the American revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and historically progressive in the sense that it unshackled the forces of production compared to continued British rule. It was still far less progressive and far less admirable than the French revolution, though.
Diva was incorrect in claiming that it was a counterrevolution, since there was no preceding revolution to react against, but the rest is all perfectly accurate.
The thing is that revolution vs. counter-revolution is a VERY important distinction to make here. In characterizing it as a counter-revolution, and, as acknowledged by other comments by the same user, characterizing it as regressive, the point implied by the facts mentioned is not “The American Revolution was deeply flawed”, which I would never dispute, but “The American Revolution was backwards and a negative thing.” The flaws and hypocrisies of the American Revolution ran deep, but it was also a legitimate struggle for bourgeois democracy (complete with the start of privileging of capitalist over feudal modes of production) against a distant imperialist power which denied self-determination to millions who lived under their rule.
That I brought up the American Revolution in the context of the idea of getting rid of the Constitution - with me supporting the idea of scrapping the Constitution despite the danger by that even the ones who wrote it up had to struggle with the thought of "This could get worse, but at some point, we have to take that chance or it will never get better" - and it gets ‘refuted’ by someone claiming it was counter-revolutionary and a bad example (for choosing to roll the fucking dice???) is just campist dribble from that user, whom I am unfortunately familiar with.
French Revolution was much a better bourgeois revolution though, I agree.
I should pay more attention when posting, clearly. I see someone say “tankie” and I fire up the tank, but it appears that our disagreements aren’t that substantial. Unless you’re a trotskyist, of course…