> One final resolution is the guillotine

Did you miss the lesson from the actual guillotine? It’s just another escalation in the cycle. The parties switch from raiding to guillotining each other. The guillotine doesn’t solve the problem, it just raises the stakes.

▲

shermantanktop 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure. Final resolution for that leader, in any case. But in the cycles of history, those events are almost always inflection points where something new happens. For the Terror, that lasted a while, but then we got Napoleon, which was definitely a new chapter.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> in the cycles of history, those events are almost always inflection points where something new happens

Guillotines have historically been a time for the elites to consolidate wealth and power (with some shuffling among them). The poor and middle class eat shit.

(The only exceptions to the first part to my knowledge being the o.g., and only the o.g., communist revolutions in Russia and China. Still shit for the poor and middle class. But the elites fully rotated.)

> For the Terror, that lasted a while, but then we got Napoleon, which was definitely a new chapter

Sure. One which involved shuffling between Bourbons and an imperial Napoleon. The Congress of Vienna brought peace to Europe until WWI. But to the extent the French Revolution benefited ordinary people, it was in Britain and America.

Being temporally proximate to a guillotining is precedentedly fine. Being physically proximate to it is pretty much shit unless you're already powerful (or lucky enough to land a seat in the new oligarchy).

▲

DiscourseFan 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Human society is prone to convulsions, though. Just like the often body requires a shock to become stronger, healthier, societies need to be a push to avoid stagnation and decay. Though its true that you risk permanent injury, if you go too far.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> its true that you risk permanent injury, if you go too far Guillotining–and violence as a tool of politics more broadly–is pretty much a one-way signal in the historical record (outside civil wars). More concentration of wealth and power. Or anarchy. Either way, the poor and middle class end up worse. As for my civil-war caveat, even that's starting to look one way in the age of information and globally-mobilised proxy-war assets.

▲

timeon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So what is 2A for? What is price of shooting children in schools for?

▲

skrebbel 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just to add to this, it still blows my mind how quickly this happened. The French went from overthrowing the royals to guillotining their neighbours within 5 years, and in the same short timespan Robespierre went madder than any Sun King had ever been. "La Terreur" was total madness.

	▲	TitaRusell 10 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My country went from 1000 years of Christian hegemony to atheist in a span of approximately 20 years. Don't underestimate the capacity for humans to change.
	▲	pavlov 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		On top of that he was a tremendous speaker. Tyrants don’t usually bother to justify their actions much beyond “because I can and I want to.” (Cf. current US administration’s discourse over Greenland.) But Robespierre was a believer in capital-R Reason, and he had to face the National Assembly all the time. So his speeches are a fascinating gradual slippery slope from “it would be good if Jews and actors would get to vote too” to “only Terror will purify the world.” I’ve got a little book of them, aptly titled “Les plus beaux discours de Robespierre” — his most beautiful speeches. It would be an odd adjective to use about almost any other political monster’s output (excepting Antiquity and the distance we have to them).
	▲	JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> French went from overthrowing the royals to guillotining their neighbours The irony being the elites after the French Revolution were not only mostly the same as before, they escaped with so much money and wealth that it’s actually debated if they increased their wealth share through the chaos [1]. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/650023