I find the language of this weeks readings particularly difficult (& I’ve never taken a history class before) so it’s possible I’ve interpreted them with comical inaccuracy. Sorry in advance/I’m hoping to learn more from other people’s blogs.
I tend to think of revolution and protest as directly opposing something, be it a system of government on the whole or something more specific, like a particular policy. Alternatively, Jefferson’ letters and the excerpts from Robespierre’s speech seem to posit revolution as something that works in conjunction with government rather than against it. Jefferson writes, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them.” This seems to suggest that any act of rebellion, regardless of its discernible impact, is a natural condition of government and in fact functions to demonstrate to those in power where they may need to change something. Jefferson goes on to suggest that acts of rebellion should be mildly punishable, if at all because they are “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” This made me think of the human body and how it’s constantly regenerating. For Jefferson and Robespierre rebellion is a natural act of regeneration that has to occur as long as government wants to remain current and effective, like shedding skin or growing nails.
Robespierre says, “the characteristic of popular government is confidence in the people and severity towards itself.” Perhaps a government that looks at rebellion as a learning experience and is hypercritical of itself would be popular. I couldn’t tell you since I’ve never seen evidence of a government that thought that way. Unsurprisingly, I think that is a very unrealistic way of describing government. As such, rebellion in the way that Jefferson and Robespierre appeared to be speaking about it, doesn’t exactly make sense to me. Their discussions of rebellion and its function reminded me of a child who loses control of a situation and tries to appears as if they have not by lying. Positing rebellion as a natural and constructive facet of government reduces the threat of a rebellion.
The first chapter of the Communist Manifesto details a type of rebellion I am much more familiar with–one that is both adversarial and violent. Of the proletariat it is stated that: “their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.”
The Communist Manifesto’s extensive discussion of class inequities (& exclusion of other potential inequities) could be viewed as narrow-minded or as evidence that class inequities really are more important than others. One way that I’ve enjoyed thinking of it is: with fewer financial concerns we would likely have more time and energy to spend thinking of and discussing our other shared difficulties. For instance, I might keep a job at which I feel undervalued and objectified because of financial concerns. I might complete a degree in a faculty I don’t care about because it offers me more job security. Relieved of the pressure to be an active and productive presence in the capitalist workforce I think I would be even better at caring for and considering the feelings and perspectives of those around me. I am inflexible when I’m exhausted.
A leader in the basic-income movement, Enno Schmidt, claims the movement would “help unleash creativity and entrepreneurialism: Switzerland’s workers would feel empowered to work the way they wanted to, rather than the way they had to just to get by. He even went so far as to compare it to a civil rights movement, like women’s suffrage or ending slavery.” I think this is a relevant movement and a potentially viable option when discussing future changes in relation to the values that are outlined in this manifesto.
I’ve linked the article below.
S. I like the idea of a basic income, but I’m not sure that Marx would be so keen. Or at least, he would see it as insufficient, as not addressing the basic tensions and contradictions within capitalism.
I like your metaphor of rebellions as human body regneration processes, like shedding skin or growing nails. I agree with you completely, Jefferson thinks highly of rebellions as they keep the system in place but also help modify it based on the needs of the people
I actually can see the logic and reasoning behind him saying that rebellions are like a “learning process”. They are like a learning process because they force people to realize that something in the system did not work, and that they are trying to find solutions to those problems
Finally, I also understand how he views rebellions as natural. For example. humans have innate reflexes or behaviours to help them survive. Those survival/evolutionary skills are engraved in ourselves, and therefore seem natural and reasonable. So going back to rebellions, if we look at them as survival skills, or as you described earlier “medecine, or human body regeneration processes”, there seems nothing unnatural about them. It’s just based on how you look at rebellions.
I really like your statement “I’m inflexible when I’m exhausted.” Certainly we would all do much better at being considerate of others when we have to worry about making contributions towards something that can seem rather pointless.
This basic income initiative is very interesting, and it seems to be gaining traction in several European countries. A few economists in France have come out in support of such a system, and it has just been introduced for a vote in the French Assemblée Nationale: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/french-national-assembly-to-vote-on-universal-basic-income-feasibility-study-a6810231.html