Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ericson2314 | Hacker News Reader

The English seem divided on this, which I do not understand.

They got rid of the king, but got a dictator instead. After he died, his son took over, botched the job, and was replaced by a king again.

France went through something similar. The aftermath of the French Revolution was botched so badly that France got Napoleon.

Russia after the breakup of the USSR, Germany after WWI... You screw up a democracy, you get a dictator.

Back in Roman times Cicero pointed out that democracy leads to chaos, which leads to tyranny, which leads to monarchy which leads to Aristocracy which leads to democracy.

There seem to be a few democracies sliding increasingly into chaos.

> The aftermath of the French Revolution was botched so badly that France got Napoleon.

That is fascinating choice of "worst thing to happen after French Revolution" thing. The regime after it was serious literal dictatorships, afaik there was no serious attempt for democracy.

Not really a popular revolution, more of an intra-elite conflict; not rooted in modern concepts of democracy, more in sectarianism; and it didn't "stick". The country reverted to a monarchy after his death. However, Parliament was then resolved to control the monarch - in particular to prevent the monarch ever being politically Catholic. Hence the uneasy toleration of Charles II (Catholic, but hedonist) and eviction of James II.

Cromwell is regarded, not unreasonably, as a mass murderer in Ireland.

> Not really a popular revolution, more of an intra-elite conflict;

that's almost always the case, at least at the beginning

> Cromwell is regarded, not unreasonably, as a mass murderer in Ireland.

most revolutionists are mass murderers

I think the division is merely into people who know about British history and people who don't.

We had a civil war which ended when we chopped our king's head off and replaced the government. That has to count as a "revolutionary moment" or the phrase has no meaning.

Plus, intellectually speaking movements like the Levellers and the Diggers were way ahead of their time, imho even the French Revolution didn't get to that level when it came to speech related to societal change, they had Babeuf but afaik he wasn't as mainstream, comparatively speaking. I think the radicalness of their speech was only matched on the Continent from the mid-19th century onward.

From a revolutionary perspective, the Diggers and the Levellers were the really interesting players to emerge from the civil war.

It's worth looking into. That period is why the American military is constitutionally dependent on the legislature.

If you will forgive me omitting many important details, Cromwell replaced a monarch and became a military dictator. Militaries and politics shouldn't mix.

To be clear, I mean "was it a revolution", not "was it a good one".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com