#I AM NOT OVERTHROWING FRANCE

[fallen-honor]

You know what? Fuck this i'm starting a medeval army to overthrow the government of France. Everyone get proficient with a weapon type. JOIN MY ARMY. WE ARE LGBTQIA+ FRIENDLY AND HAVE SNACKS!!!!!!

(FOR LEGAL REASONS I AM NOT GOING TO OVERTHROW FRANCE I AM JOKING)

[green-lights-33]

okay is Sirius saying “I hate you” in the beautiful gif you’ve made?? Cause not knowing is driving me crazy and at first I thought it was “I love you” but it’s giving more enemies to lovers vibes I think and once I saw the first option I can’t unsee it:((( your latest art is gorgeous as always, I hope you’re having a lovely day:)

hehe ‘i hate you’ works buuuut.

he is actually saying: ‘I do’.

it took quite a bit of time just cause i’m very new to animation (involving lots of me sitting at my desk repeatedly jerking my head back and forth to try and work out what way hair moves) so anyway i came up with a whole scene in my head haha and that is what sirius’ reply to remus is.

[tanadrin]

It sounds like you likely side against the protesters in New Caledonia who were apparently protesting about France giving people who moved there recently the right to vote in local elections. (i.e. the native minority doesn't want the colonizers to have the right to vote)

I probably would! If you live somewhere, and pay taxes there, and use the public services and utilities there, you should have full political rights. That policy seems like an overcorrection for historical injustice--e.g., the French not granting Muslims voting rights in North Africa.

And there are other awkward questions you could pose for my open-borders-and-free-citizenship stance--like the fact that the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy was driven in part by immigrants of American background who felt excluded from representation (but who in turn wanted to exclude Asian immigrants from representation), or how small countries that suddenly find themselves in an advantageous economic position often find their demographics rapidly changing (Qatar, Hawaii in the early 20th century).

But the alternative--the whole hog of blood-and-soil nationalism, with a bit of anti-colonial lipstick--seems pretty bad to me. People move around. Places change. Cultures change. We can and should do everything in our power to ensure those changes and that movement is the result of, like, free individual choice, and not war or violent seizure of land or systems of brutal economic exploitation. And sometimes despite those changes, the things people love about their traditional cultures can persist--especially now, in a world that pays much more attention to the rights of (for example) minority language speakers than it used to.

But the desire for the world to remain culturally, linguistically, and economically static is basically reactionary. I mean really, it's the aesthetic heart of reaction. It's also an absurdity. Even perfectly isolated societies can change in dramatic ways. And, of course, very often "tradition" is a cudgel simply wielded in the service of entrenching a different kind of elite power: I am no more supportive of the Hawaiian monarchy, one born of bloody conquest by an imperialistic dynasty, than I am of the British; the British one just happened to be more historically successful, but the underlying principles are the same. Cf. also the way land tenure works in American Samoa, a system that is billed as keeping land in native hands--which it does, by institutionalizing the colonial system of blood quantum and being explicitly racist, and simply serving to prop up a different set of elites (in this case, traditional tribal elites rather than colonial ones).

I think the only way you can really escape the trap of reaction and nationalism is to refuse to play the game in the first place--to put the primacy of your bond to your fellow human beings, regardless of culture or race or origin, and thus inherent political equality (and solidarity) above other considerations. Tribalism, pillarization, byzantine ethnicity-based power-sharing arrangements, special rules for land tenure or voting rights--all these have a nasty way of turning into new forms of exploitation, of someone figuring out how to do the economic and political arbitrage at someone else's expense. The central insight of 1789 was correct here: the only solution is the universal equality of all human beings. The trick is to carry that insight through to its logical conclusion.

[mask131]

In general, when it comes to the religious approach between the US and a country like France, the huge gap can be easily explained by history.

The USA history was all about learning to embrace and accept and tolerate all and every religion. Yes there was religious fanaticism and religious extremes in this country - in fact a lot of people in there like to forget the founders of the USA were themselves considered religious fanatics by Europe. But the whole history of the USA is about learning to be open-minded and tolerant and respectful of other religions.

But a country like France? Its history is about to try and kill religion. France had its "let's welcome and open all religions" era - but a long time ago, and somehow it shows how "young" of a country the USA is. France meanwhile went way past beyond that, and went to the next phase, the systematic elimination of religion, or at least reducing it to the point of it being harmless.

Because France had to deal with all the most fucked up things religion had to offer. Not only did we kept fighting with every neighboring countries in names of religions (Christianity vs Islam, Catholicism vs Protestantism or Anglicanism), but we even had the historical traumatism of the religious wars within France itself, the country devouring its own due to the Catholic vs Protestant debate. Itself being a mere continuation of the strict hunt by the Inquisition of all the various "heretic" groups in France - France was the country where the Templar Knights and the Cathare met their death by mass executions.

The French Revolution was all about getting rid of an over-powerful and corrupted Church, and of a biased government tied to Christianity so much the Crown and the Church were just one and the same. Overthrowing the King was overthrowing the chosen of God, and the one sent by God - and thus the French Revolution was about men of religion, and the Terreur that followed made sure to get rid of all those French communities that were still too attached to their religion. Heck the French Revolution was all about removing any religious name, and all religious celebrations and destroying all religious statues - not just of Christianity, but also of long-dead religions such as the Greek or Roman ones.

And the Enlightenment. What about the Enlightenment? Everybory part of the "Lights" were about denouncing and criticizing religious fanaticism and the power of "superstition" over the minds. They liked in times of religious wars and persecutions, and they knew first hand that religion was the enemy of a good, human thinking. Just take Voltaire's writing: the guy spent his entire life taking down any form of organized, unthought religion, caricaturing, mocking or denouncing all the forms of Inquisition and hurtful superstitions he could find.

And even then, one of the most important dates French kids are taught in school, which is considered to mark the beginning of modern France, is 1905: the law separating the Church from the State. This was the moment the modern Republic, after many tries and fails, finally established the principle that religion should not be part of a government, and that the State should be above religion, and that religion was a private domain not a public one. This is one of the fundamental principles of the French Republic: secularism, laicity, the modern way to ensure a freedom of religion by making sure none dominate and that all religious matters are to be secondary in the greater scope of things.

So yeah, what I am trying to say is that France's entire history is about fighting off religion and trying to make clear it should not define people's life and should not be imposed on anybody and should not have too much power. Because France lived in the trauma of the Inquisition, and the religious wars, and the superstition-fueled persecutions, and the Church influencing if not corrupting the government. Times and times again in an endless cycle.

Which of course is going to make a HUGE difference when it comes to religious approach compared to a country like the United-States, which was founded by religious communities, partially for religious reasons, and whose entire creation relied on religious principles (like Manifest Destiny), and where the President still has to swear by the Bible before obtaining their post...

[pub-lius]

DONT MAKE THIS LAFAYETTE POST AT 3 AM... | LAFAYETTE 3 AM CHALLENGE (scary) (don't try) (gone wrong) (lafayette pt. 4)

i witerawwy making this wafayette post at thwee am guys :0 (im so fucking tired but i hope you enjoy this @thereallvrb0y ) also here's pt. 3

The Conway Cabal *vine boom*

Alright, so last we left off, Lafayette rejoined Washington's staff on October 19, 1777 and Congress named him the commander of his own division. Woohoo!

While at Valley Forge (which is it's own beast to tackle another day), Lafayette worked closely with the aides-de-camp to procure supplies for the troops, but since they rarely ever got their requests fulfilled, Lafayette ended up spending his own money to provide necessities for the men, which is something like barely anyone else did, so this was super cool.

It's around this time that Washington's office became obsessed with the idea of a Conway Cabal (this is like one of my favorite topics of the amrev so I will try to keep this brief).

Lafayette's involvement in this whole ordeal came in the form of another fucking Canada expedition. At first, Lafayette refused because he didn't want to betray Washington, since the order came from the Board of War, which was seen as like a way to usurp Washington. When the order came from Congress (which was more acceptable to a political ally of Washington), Lafayette still didn't agree because he didn't want Thomas Conway, the former Inspector General, as his second in command because he thought he was annoying and dumb. Eventually, with some negotiating, he accepted on the condition that Conway wouldn't be there.

Side note: i will get exasperated several times with America wanting to conquer Canada or get them on their side against the British in some way because this happens SO MANY TIMES throughout the amrev and also 1812 that it is physically exhausting. like Canada wouldn't be any fuck to anyone anyway (no hate to canadians y'all are alright but still useless as hell in 18th century warfare)

When Lafayette arrived at where he'd be stationed in Albany, he was like wtf because he had N O T H I N G. like when I say nothing I mean most of the men he was told he'd have weren't there, there were no supplies like at all, and the men that WERE there were sick and dying and Lafayette had to pay more out of pocket to keep them alive. So, yeah, that expedition DIDNT HAPPEN, and Washington's allies were like "yeah this was definitely doomed to fail".

*DISCLAIMER: Again, I have to give the Conway Cabal Disclaimer (tm), there is no definitive proof that there was an actual conspiracy to overthrow Washington and replace him with Gates, it's more likely that he just had political enemies who had separate schemes against him, and occasionally worked together against their common enemy. Me personally, i don't really give a rats ass if they were actually conspiring against him, I think the events kinda speak for themselves and the conspiracy question is the wrong one to be asking.*

Barren Hill and Monmouth

Remember when I mentioned that Lafayette had established himself as the middle man between America and France? Yeah, that is important because he played a role in the ~French/American alliance~ aka the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, but that isn't really interesting aside from the fact that around the time everyone was celebrating the alliance, Gilbert found out his oldest daughter, Henriette, had died. Whoops!

After he was done sobbing while everyone else partied, he was ordered to find out of the British were actually leaving Philadelphia or just pranking them. Washington stationed Lafayette at Barren Hill with his Virginian detachment (this is where his love of Virginia comes from, along with his besties being from there), as well as some Oneida warriors he befriended while on that "Canada expedition"

Note: there's actually some interesting nuance with the indigenous warriors that played a part at Barren Hill, so I recommend anyone who is interested in that to look into it bc its super cool

Another note: Lafayette would eventually take a young Oneida boy with him to France (along with a Protestant kid who's father died in the war) for a better education, and there's some really interesting racial stuff that shows the attitudes the French court had towards poc, particularly indigenous people, at the time. Basically what had happened was Lafayette wanted to show off the really cool culture but really just ended up humiliating the kid by exploiting and exaggerating his culture for his French aristocratic visitors. it was very not cool and he should have known better!

Anyway, back to Barren Hill.

Washington gave Lafayette specific orders not to stay in one place because it would make it really easy for the British to find his location and attack him. Like really easy. Especially if you made camp on top of a hill and just kinda. chilled there. for an extended period of time. Like the British would find you immediately...

So the British found him immediately because he made camp on top of a hill and just kinda chilled there for an extended period of time. That hill was Barren Hill, if you hadn't already guessed.

Roughly a shit ton (5,000) British shoulders attacked the encampment from three directions, and in doing so, completely fucking Lafayette over. However, thanks mostly to the Oneida warriors, Lafayette and his troops retreated calmly across a low road through the woods, across the Schuylkill river (everything happens here), and successfully eluding the enemy. btw the Americans lost only NINE LIVES. Also another shoutout to the Oneida warriors who were absolute BADASSES and were the last to leave the site to make sure everyone else got out safely :')

Okay now we're getting into the real shit.

So Washington was like "okay so the British are ACTUALLY leaving Philadelphia (thanks laf), let's annoy the shit out of them while they leave" and they did, had a couple skirmishes here and there, but they wanted a real victory, so they planned one for the area near Monmouth Courthouse.

At first, Washington offered the command to General Charles Lee, who was pretty experienced in European warfare and was also throwing a huge hissy fit because he needed attention constantly. Lee never liked Washington or his plans, so he declined the command at Monmouth, so Washington gave it to Lafayette.

However, Lee was a petty bitch who clearly had no father figure so he threw another fucking tantrum when he found out that Lafayette would be in command instead of him, so he appealed to Washington and got the command back based on seniority.

During the battle, Lee was pushed back by Cornwallis' troops, and ordered a retreat, however he did not go about this in an orderly fashion, and did not give specific directions on who was retreating and where, so the troops were just running around in confusion while getting shot at. Lafayette, who was on the front lines, sent a note to Washington who arrived ASAP, and tore Lee a new asshole in front of everyone and it was super embarrassing.

The battle continued for the rest of the day (with Lafayette leading troops at the front and Lee at the rear) and eventually the British withdrew, making the battle a technical draw, but a moral victory for the Continental army.

Lee slandered many of the officers, including Washington, von Steuben, and Washington's aides-de-camp, which is the reason John Laurens shot his ass. His career never recovered.

Also, we have the records for Lee's court martial, and they're very interesting to read if you have the time. Laurens' testimonies are very funny.

The Newport Campaign

Good news: France finally sent naval support in the form of a fleet under Admiral d'Estaing, which arrived in Rhode Island. More good news: d'Estaing quickly befriended Lafayette. Even better news: the French and Continental forces were planning a campaign against the British fortifications at Newport, RI.

Bad news: the Americans chose General John Sullivan as commander of the Continental troops for the Newport campaign. And he. Hates. French people.

The American and French officers planned a joint land and sea offensive against the British and Hessian troops, and they were really riding on Lafayette's ability to ease the tension between the French and Americans, but things were still strained since Sullivan and d'Estaing both wanted the military advantage of attacking first.

Without consulting d'Estaing, Sullivan decided to attack a day early. This was really stupid because he wouldn't have naval coverage but he did it anyway. D'Estaing felt betrayed by this, and dispatched his fleet from Newport Harbor to pursue British ships without consulting Sullivan, so Sullivan had even less naval coverage bc the ships were just gone.

This left Lafayette trying to mend relations between these two assholes. He begged d'Estaing to come back and that the Americans thought he was being dramatic, but d'Estaing refused until strong winds destroyed his ships and he had to go into port to repair his ships, which he said he'd leave immediately after that was finished. He sailed for Boston with his repaired ships, and Sullivan accused him of desertion, cowardice, or treason. He put his accusations to paper and sent it ahead of d'Estaing so that the Bostonians wouldn't want anything to do with him.

Lafayette. lost. his. shit. He was infuriated that Sullivan would insult the French, though he didn't condone d'Estaing's behavior. In fact, he was so enraged that he decided not to update Washington because he didn't want to risk insulting the Commander in Chief. Eventually, he broke and talked to Washington, who handled the situation diplomatically.

"Would you believe that, forgetting the general obligations owed to France and the services specifically rendered by the fleet, the greater part of these people here allow faded prejudices to revive and speak as though they had been abandoned, almost betrayed." -Lafayette to d'Estaing, August 24

Note: the next post might take even longer than this one lol because I have to take more notes from my sources to get my timeline together for laf's participation in the french revolution, but while I'm doing that, i'll be posting an actual timeline of the frev on here, so i'll still be making posts. also, even tho my account will be focused on frev for a little bit, im still actively doing research on the amrev, so any questions about either, or other historical figures/events, are still just as encouraged as normal! love y'all <3

[blueshistorysims]

Late November 1918, France

The war was over. Byron could barely believe it. So much death and destruction, and suddenly, it was over. The war that had killed his brother, taken his childhood best friends, and murdered most of his friends from university was over. 

He had stayed in France longer, meeting with his brother-in-law in Paris to then take a train to Edinburgh, where Edeline was living with Montgomery’s family, having sold the London townhome. The married couple was planning to find a place near his family so Edeline could finish her medical studies at the University of Edinburgh. 

“Our sisters are meeting us at the train station, yes?”

Montgomery nodded. “Aye. I expect Elspeth will spend the whole time questioning me politics. She has begun to think that I am not communist enough.”

“That’s a first.”

“Well, I’m still religious. In her words, ‘To be real communist, Monty, ya've gotta be an atheist. Religion is the opium of the people.’ I'm the fuckin' one who got her to read Marx.”

Byron laughed. “Well, contrary to what Marx says, I think opium is the opium of the people.”

The Scot chuckled. “Ya have a point. What, ya’ve read Marx?”

“Yes, and before you start to convert me, I read all sorts of stuff. I find it a good idea to understand ideologies you don’t agree with.”

“Then you don’t think the Russians were right to overthrow their oppressive government?”

“I never said that. But there wasn’t a need to murder the Tsar and his family. They were children.”

“That I agree with.” He frowned. “That isn’t certainly supporting the cause. It will only alienate other nations. I may be a communist, but I don’t believe in senseless murder.”

“But if everyone else thinks that communists are murderers, those who are passive will be targeted.” He swallowed. “I mean, communism is a wonderful ideology on paper… but humanity is greedy. To have one person at the center of power until the revolution is finished? That is improbable. Power corrupts, no matter how good your intentions are. Besides, Marx and Engels were upper-middle-class Germans whose families owned factories. Communism was their attempt to solve the inequality. Yet, neither man gave up the comfortability of the middle class to be champions of the proletariat. They only wrote about it. Russia will be the first to put it in theory. I don’t deny that I am curious to see what this Vladimir Lenin will do, but I have a suspicion it won’t end well.”

Montgomery was silent for a few minutes. “...Please don’t start fights with me sister.”

“Of course not, this political discussion will stay on the train. Now that the war is over, I expect that the government will be harsher toward other government philosophies, and communists and socialists will be first on the list. And I doubt my anti-imperialist views and membership of several left-wing political clubs during my time at Oxford will help.”

“Agreed,” he muttered, glancing out the window. 

[alpaca-clouds]

So, the French Revolution

Okay, with Castlevania Nocturne coming out, this week's historical rant just has to be about the French revolution, right? Because... It is very funny to me how omnipresent it is in culture, while also... people outside of France know very little about it.

Now, I am German. And we over here were influenced by the French Revolution of course. You know, we had a revolution a bit later, too. And we did the revolution in history class. Twice, in fact. (Due to the German curriculum being kinda weird.)

But at some point I realized that even though we did it in school twice, I... barely knew anything about it. Mostly due to a lot of history around it at least in my time in school being very much Great Man history once again. So we talked about Robspierre and his dudes, we talked about the royalty, we talked about the march on Versailles (somehow leaving out it was a woman's march), and about the storming of the Bastille... But... We left out so much about what was actually happening on a social level in France or even the exact goals of the revolution outside of the good old "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" thingie. And weirdly enough... Our entire class on the end of the revolution was "But it failed". No why. No how. No anything.

And, of course, there also has been this one thing very prevailant in us talking about any of the revolutions. How a certain cheeto colored president would have phrased it: "There were good people on both sides."

And I think this last thing is a bit to present.

While the general idea about the revolution is, that it was kinda good, but also really bad because of all the death and brutality. Which, yeah, kinda is fair. But also... Is a very shallow understanding of what was going on.

What if I was to tell you, that the revolution originally was mostly peaceful?

I know, right? Like, of course there was violence and death, but it was not cruel on the part of the revolutionaries and mostly (partly because most of the clergy supported the revolutionaries) the nobility ended up giving in and tried to play the game in a way that they gave up some privilege, but not all of them. Which ended up with a system in which a lot of people gained political influence... but still about half of the men and all of the women in France had no political power.

And then... No, no guillontine. Not yet. Rather there was a war with Austria and Prussia, which would have happened either way, but there was also a lot of encouragement from the French nobility and royalty for Austria-Prussia to invade France to restore the old order.

And when those invading forces were pushed back... that was the moment when the violence and the "reign of terror" errupted. And the people started calling for bigger change. For a system were possibly EVERYONE could hold political power.

When media tackles the French revolution, it usually fails to deal with all those details. It also basically goes like: "Yeah, typical left-wing infighting," when it comes to the conflict between the revolutionary groups, completely ignoring what that infighting was about (it was about whether polical power should be for all people or just those owning land, also some stuff that we today would call civil rights and some early ideas that later on communism and the like would build upon).

I honestly do feel like we should do better teaching this.

While most people tend to agree that "overthrowing the royalty" was a good thing, a lot of people will go: "But they went too far!" And I gotta ask: "What was too far?" Like, sure, there was a lot of murder... But be aware that this murder was not unsided. And also... This entire thing happened after a lot of people starved to death. Which... Also constitutes murder?

[dailyanarchistposts]

Saturday 18 May

Over the past 48 hours, strikes with factory occupations have spread like a trail of gunpowder, from one corner of the country to the other. The railways are paralysed, civil airports fly the red flag. (‘provocateurs’ have obviously been at work!) L’Humanité publishes on its front page a declaration from the National Committee of the CGT:

From hour to hour strikes and factory occupations are spreading. This action, started on the initiative of the CGT and of other trade union organizations (sic), creates a new situation of exceptional importance... Long- accumalated popular discontent is now finding expression. The questions being asked must be answered seriously and full notice taken of their importance. The evolution of the situation is giving a new dimension to the struggle... While multiplying its efforts to raise the struggle to the needed level, the National Committee warns all CGT militants and local groups against any attempts by outside groups to meddle in the conduct of the struggle, and against all arts of provocation which might assist the forces Of repression in their attempts to thwart the development of the movement..”

The same issue of the paper devoted a whole page to warning students of the fallacy of any notions of ‘student power’ — en passant — attributing to the ‘Mouvement du 22 Mars’ a whole series of political positions they had never held. Monday 20 May The whole country is totally paralysed. The Communist Patly is still warning about ‘provocations’. The top right hand corner of I’Humanité contains a böx labelled ‘WARNING”:

Leafiets have been distributed in the Paris area calling for an insurrectionary general strike, it goes without saying that such appeals have not been issued by our democratic trade union organizations. They are the work of provocateurs seeking to provide the government with a pretext for intervention... The workers must be vigilant to defeat all such manoeuvres...”’

In the same issue, Etienne Fajon of the Central Committee, continues the warnings’..

“The Establishment’s main preoccupation at the moment is to divide the ranks of the working class and to divide it from other sections of the population... Our Political Bureau has warned workers and students, from the very beginning, against venturing slogans capable of dislocating the broad front of the struggle. Several provocations have thus been prevented. Our political vigilance must clearly be maintained...”.

The same issue devoted its central pages to an interview of Mr Georges Séguy, general secretary of, the CGT, conducted over the Europe No 1 radio network. In these live interviews, various listeners phoned questions in directly. The following exchanges are worth recording:

Question Mr Séguy, the workers on strike are everywhere saying that they will go the whole hog. What do you mean by this? What are your objectives?”

Answer,The strike is so powerful that the workers obviously mean to obtain the maximum concessions at the end of such a movement. The whole hog for us trade unionists, means winning the demands that we have always fought for,but which the government and the employers have always refused to consider. They have opposed an obtuse intransigence to the proposals for negotiations which we have repeatedly made. “The whole hog means a general rise in wages (no wages less than 600 francs per month), guaranteed employment, an earlier retirement age, reduction of working hours without loss of wages and the defence and extension of trade union rights within the factory. I am not putting these demands in any particular order because we attach the same importance to all of them.”.

Question If I am not mistaken the statutes of the CGT declare its aims to be the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by socialism. In the present circumstances, that you have yourself referred to as ‘exceptional’ and ‘important’, why doesn’t the COT seize this unique chance of calling for its fundamental objectives?”

Answer “This is a very interesting question. I like it very much, It is true that the CGT offer: the workers a concept of trade unionism that we consider the most revolutionary insofar as its final objective is the end of the employing class and of wage labour. It is true that this is the first of our statutes, It remains fundamentally the CGT’S objective. But can the present movement reach this objective? lf it became obvious that it could, we would be ready to assume our responsibilities. It remains to be seen whether all the social strata involved in the present movement are ready to go that far”

Question Since fast week’s events l have gone everywhere where people are arguing. I went this afternoon to the Odeon Theatre. Masses of people were discussing there, I can assure you that all the classes who suffer from the present regime were represented there. When I asked whether people thought that the movement should go further than the small demands put forward by the trade unions for the last 10 or 20 years, I brought the house down. l therefore think that it would be criminal to miss the present opportunity, It would be criminal because sooner or later this will have to be done. The conditions of today might aglow us to do it peacefully and calmly and will perhaps never come back. I think this call must be made by you and the other political organizations. These political organizations are not your business, of course, but the CGT is a revolutionary organization. You must bring out your revolutionary flag. The workers are astounded to see you so timid”

Answer While you were bathing in the Odeon fever, I was in the factories. Amongst workers. l assure you that the answer I am giving you is the answer of a leader of a great trade union, which claims to have assumed all its responsibilities, but which does not confuse its wishes with reality”

Caller I woul like to speak to Mr Séguy. My name is Duvauchel. l am the director of the Sud Aviation factory at Nantes.”’ Séguy “Good morning, sir.”’

Duvauchel “Good morning, Mr General Secretary. ! would like to know what you think of the fact that for the last four days I have been sequestrated, together with about 20 other managerial staff, inside the Sud Aviation factory at Nantes” Séguy “Has anyone raised a hand against you”’

Duvauchel “No. But I am prevented from leaving, despite the fact that the general manager of the firm has intimated that the firm was prepared to make positive proposals as soon as free access to its factory could be resumed, and first of all to its managerial staff” Séguy Have you asked to leave the factory?”

Duvauchel “Yes!”

Séguy Was permission refused?”

Duvauchel “Yes!”

Séguy “Then I must refer you to the declaration I made yesterday at the CGT’S press conference. I stated that I disapproved of such activities. We are taking the necessary steps to see they are not repeated”.

But enough is enough. The Revolution itself will doubtless be denounced by the Stalinists as a provocation! By way of an epilogue it is worth recording that at a packed meeting of revolutionary students, held at the Mutuality on Thursday 9 May, a spokesman of theTrotskyist organization Communiste Internationalists could think of nothing better to do than call on the meeting to pass a resolution calling on Séguy to call a general strike!!!

[cliozaur]

This digression serves as an important introduction to the political context of the June Revolt, but I am not qualified enough to interpret Hugo’s interpretation in all its intricate details (a comprehensive discussion on this topic is available here if you wish to delve deeper).

I will make just a couple of observations. I like how Hugo presents the Restoration as an outcome of societal fatigue and inertia. After experiencing years of significant figures and momentous events, 'the nation' yearned for something 'small' (an interesting suggestion). This desire led to an inclination to return to a perceived state of 'normalcy,' a tendency fraught with peril!

Guarantees and charters vs. the divine right. The dynasty took it for granted that the divine right places them above the guarantees. It’s a very nice passage about the roots and the past: “It thought that it had roots, because it was the past. It was mistaken; it formed a part of the past, but the whole past was France. The roots of French society were not fixed in the Bourbons, but in the nations.”

It’s worth noting that Hugo does credit the Restoration with progressive accomplishments: “the nation had grown accustomed to calm discussion, which had been lacking under the Republic, and to grandeur in peace, which had been wanting under the Empire.” The time of peace gave rise to many things, praised by Hugo: “For a space of fifteen years, those great principles which are so old for the thinker, so new for the statesman, could be seen at work in perfect peace, on the public square; equality before the law, liberty of conscience, liberty of speech, liberty of the press, the accessibility of all aptitudes to all functions. Thus it proceeded until 1830.”

Hugo describes the July Revolution as a “strange revolution.” Indeed, it stands out for its relatively non-violent nature; no previous ruler was executed, and the transformation was achieved with remarkable gentleness (it also just replaced one monarch with the other, one dynasty with the other). And he calls it “the triumph of right overthrowing the fact” a concept that elucidates its relatively non-violent nature. Intriguingly, that for him, Machiavelli is the embodiment of “the fact.” Thus, in retrospect, the July Revolution is seen to possess its own merits (same as the Restoration). As far as I understand, tomorrow we'll read about its shortcomings.

[73647e]

i like to pretend that i am a poor peasant woman in france starving for bread and plotting to overthrow the monarchy to receive it

[fivedayshakespeare]

11/19/2023-11/23/2023: Richard II

Hey, I got a First Folio!

Well, not an ACTUAL First Folio. Those things are pretty expensive. Instead, I got a special replica of the First Folio made by the British Library. It's the 400th anniversary of the Folio's publication, so they did this one up right. So it was, you know, kind of expensive, but in a range I could manage.

It's propped up on a bookstand, and I will have it open to whatever play I'm currently reading. It feels a bit pretentious, but also it makes me happy whenever I look over and see it on my dresser. So.

I was completely unfamiliar with Richard II, both the play and the man. I knew, in an abstract sort of way, that the existence of Richard III and Richard the Lionhearted (or "The absent king during Robin Hood") implied an interim Richard, but I was entirely ignorant of the details. So I'm simultaneously reading Shakespeare and learning English History! Maybe not 100% accurate English History, but I feel like Shakespeare is the Official Version at this point.

In Richard II, the titular Richard is the heir of Edward III, who we last saw basically conquering France. I guess it didn't go well after the final curtain, because France is not at issue here. Instead, Richard is fooling around with court favorites and exiles the wrong dude. Bolingbroke leaves England and immediately comes back with an army.

Sidebar: Where do these dudes find their armies? During the constant challenges to Henry VI, people would just stroll out of England and immediately come back with 10,000 men. It's like this in The Romance of the Three Kingdoms too, so it's not just England. I guess in Medieval times, peasants were eager to do anything that didn't smack of peasant-ing, so they were more willing to die in attempts to overthrow the king.

Toward the end, Richard comes off very sympathetically. Although he doesn't ever feel like he'd be a great king, I do feel bad for him. He got a raw deal.

So now Bolingbroke is Henry IV, and I am assured that we will catch up with him again.

Up Next: Romeo and Juliet (hey, I know this one!)

[theloonatic]

i'm very interested in shut eye town and i am asking for some fun facts about your story pls and ty /nf

So

There's places in the world that have been protected from Hagos influence known as safetowns

Each usually specialises in a certain field

Havre - Safetown set right in the middle of France, specialises in education

Salāmatī/સલામતી - Safetown set on the coast of Gujarat, India, specialises in nuclear energy

Pale'ia - Safetown set on Mainland Hawaii and the island of Maui, specialises in water treatment

Sacrário - Safetown set around the post city of Paraiba in Brazil, specialises in creating the mobilets (funky vehicles that look like buses but with drills on the front and tank like wheels)

Isertorfik - Safetown set in the inhabited areas of southern Greenland, specialises in rehabilitating Hagoite soldiers

Kuvanda - Safetown set around the post capital city of Zimbabwe, Harare. Specialises in creating technology and agriculture.

Seiiki/聖域 - Safetown set on the island of Oshima, Japan. Specialises in healthcare.

Inuinui- Safetown set on the island of Fiji. Specialises is weapons and armour making.

There's also 2 safeschools, a little less organised as they were set up by children overthrowing (with or without teachers) the Hago regime. Prosperity Integrated School in post Sheffield, England, and Hòa Bình School in post Tuyên Quang, Vietnam

All the names translate to words like "Haven" or "Safety" in their respective languages :)

[theculturedmarxist]

I am completely at a loss as to why the UK should seek to join in with the US in considering China an enemy, and in looking to build up military forces in the Pacific to oppose China.

In what sense are Chinese interests opposed to British interests? I am not sure when I last bought something which wasn’t maufactured in China. To my astonishment that even applies to our second hand Volvo, and it also applies to this laptop.

I have stated this before but it is worth restating:

I cannot readily think of any example in history, of a state which achieved the level of economic dominance China has now achieved, that did not seek to use its economic muscle to finance military acquisition of territory to increase its economic resources.

In that respect China is vastly more pacific than the United States, United Kingdom, France, Spain or any other formerly prominent power.

Ask yourself this simple question. How many overseas military bases does the USA have? And how many overseas military bases does China have?

Depending on what you count, the United States has between 750 and 1100 overseas military bases. China has between 6 and 9.

The last military aggression by China was its takeover of Tibet in 1951 and 1959. Since that date, we have seen the United States invade with massive destruction Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

The United States has also been involved in sponsoring numerous military coups, including military support to the overthrow of literally dozens of governments, many of them democratically elected. It has destroyed numerous countries by proxy, Libya being the most recent example.

China has simply no record, for over 60 years, of attacking and invading other countries.

The anti-Chinese military posture adopted by the leaders of US, UK and Australia as they pour astonishing amounts of public money into the corrupt military industrial complex to build pointless nuclear submarines, appears a deliberate attempt to create military tension with China.

Sunak recited the tired neoliberal roll call of enemies, condemning: “Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, China’s growing assertiveness, and destabilising behaviour of Iran and North Korea”.

What precisely are Iran and China doing, that makes them our enemy?

This article is not about Iran, but plainly western sanctions have held back the economic and societal development of that highly talented nation and have simply entrenched its theological regime.

Their purpose is not to improve Iran but to maintain a situation where Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran does not. If accompanied by an effort to disarm the rogue state of Israel, they might make more sense.

On China, in what does its “assertiveness” consist that makes it necessary to view it as a military enemy? China has constructed some military bases by artificially extending small islands. That is perfectly legal behaviour. The territory is Chinese.

As the United States has numerous bases in the region on other people’s territory, I truly struggle to see where the objection lies to Chinese bases on Chinese territory.

China has made claims which are controversial for maritime jurisdiction around these artificial islands – and I would argue wrong under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. But they are no more controversial than a great many other UNCLOS claims, for example the UK’s behaviour over Rockall.

China has made, for example, no attempt to militarily enforce a 200 mile exclusive economic zone arising from its artificial islands, whatever it has said. Its claim to a 12 mile territorial sea is I think valid.

Similarly, the United States has objected to pronouncements from China that appear contrary to UNCLOS on passage through straits, but again this is no different from a variety of such disputes worldwide. The United States and others have repeatedly asserted, and practised, their right of free passage, and met no military resistance from China.

So is that it? Is that what Chinese “aggression” amounts to, some UNCLOS disputes?

Aah, we are told, but what about Taiwan?

To which the only reply is, what about Taiwan? Taiwan is a part of China which separated off under the nationalist government after the Civil War. Taiwan does not claim not to be Chinese territory.

In fact – and this is far too little understood in the West because our media does not tell you – the government of Taiwan still claims to be the legitimate government of all of China.

The government of Taiwan supports reunification just as much as the government of China, the only difference being who would be in charge.

The dispute with Taiwan is therefore an unresolved Chinese civil war, not an independent state menaced by China. As a civil war the entire world away from us, it is very hard to understand why we have an interest in supporting one side rather than the other.

Peaceful resolution is of course preferable. But it is not our conflict.

There is no evidence whatsoever that China has any intention of invading anywhere else in the China Seas or the Pacific. Not Singapore, not Japan and least of all Australia. That is almost as fantastic as the ludicrous idea that the UK must be defended from Russian invasion.

If China wanted, it could simply buy 100% of every public listed company in Australia, without even noticing a dent in China’s dollar reserves.

Which of course brings us to the real dispute, which is economic and about soft power. China has massively increased its influence abroad, by trade, investment, loans and manufacture. China is now the dominant economic power, and it can only be a matter of time before the dollar ceases to be the world’s reserve currency.

China has chosen this method of economic expansion and prosperity over territorial acquisition or military control of resources.

That may be to do with Confucian versus Western thought. Or it may just be the government in Beijing is smarter than Western governments. But growing Chinese economic dominance does not appear to me a reversible process in the coming century.

To react to China’s growing economic power by increasing western military power is hopeless. It is harder to think of a more stupid example of lashing out in blind anger. It is a it like peeing on your carpet because the neighbours are too noisy.

Aah, but you ask. What about human rights? What about the Uighurs?

I have a large amount of sympathy. China was an Imperial power in the great age of formal imperialism, and the Uighurs were colonised by China. Unfortunately the Chinese have followed the West’s “War on Terror” playbook in exploiting Islamophobia to clamp down on Uighur culture and autonomy.

I very much hope that this reduces, and that freedom of speech improves in general across China.

But let nobody claim that human rights genuinely has any part to play in who the Western military industrial complex treats as an enemy and who it treats as an ally. I know it does not, because that is the precise issue on which I was sacked as an Ambassador.

The abominable suffering of the children of Yemen and Palestine also cries out against any pretence that Western policy, and above all choice of ally, is human rights based.

China is treated as an enemy because the United States has been forced to contemplate the mortality of its economic dominance.

China is treated as an enemy because that is a chance for the political and capitalist classes to make yet more super profits from the military industrial complex.

But China is not our enemy. Only atavism and xenophobia make it so.

[squadron-goals]

End of 1918: Ceasefire and revolution

Rudolf Berthold is in the Berlin University Hospital until late autumn 1918, where his sister looks after him. Due to the slow healing of his wounds, further use of Berthold in the troops was no longer an option, nor was he initially granted use at home. He spent the last weeks of the war in his Franconian home.

October 1918

Overthrow! Constitutional change! In a few days, what strong men have built up over centuries will be destroyed. "Peace at any price!" So the seduced people whine. People everywhere have lost their heads. One doubts the army. We are still far in enemy territory and we are supposed to surrender? Madness! Oh Germany, where is your national feeling? How great France is in this respect! Despite all the devastation at home, despite the many defeats, it remains strong. We have been victorious for 4 years, we have smashed armies and states almost in all parts of the compass rose, and yet the homeland has not been behind the front for a long time! Not only because of the privations to which we too were subjected; the internal incitement, the worthless party discord has crushed the spirit of unification of 1914, has crushed all that was good! You dishonourable wretches who have carried the spirit of treason to the people under the guise of the alleged idea of peace, do you believe that the enemy will know justice and mercy? Ceasefire offer ... our honour is over! I still push for the front. The consequences of my last crash are outwardly overcome. Unfortunately, my right arm remains lame. But I shot with it in spring and summer after all. The will and the ability just have to be there! I want my Geschwader 2 back. Precisely because I had the greatest difficulties with it for months until it was flying at its best, until it grew close to my heart. I am attached to each and every one of them.

The belief in the imminent peace of nations is a fantasy of our pacifists: the world will never completely eliminate ill-will and enmity, love even among nations can never be forced, especially when hatred lies in the blood, and a bridge can never be built in the long run between people that differ from each other like fire and water. Only power and the will to defend oneself secure life for the individual as well as the nation.

Wilson replied. We continue on the sloping track and I still have to sit here. I want to go out to the front! I'm supposed to put together a new fighter wing after all. If only I had at least my healthy bones ..., but I'll make it anyway! The will does everything. As long as the battle rages outside, everyone who has experience belongs out there! One can help so much, especially from an educational point of view! How pathetic is this begging in front of Wilson! The front is fixed again and yet we want to surrender, we the actual bearers of the victories! How ridiculous, mean and miserable is fate sometimes! These days I am in my closer home near Bamberg. It is a beautiful piece of German soil. This magnificent German forest, the serious spruce, they seem to me even more gloomy than usual, even sad! They mourn with me over our nation's growing disgrace!... This people without self-confidence should be ripe to govern itself! Disgusting is the poison and spite that is spread against the person of our Emperor! Thus the foreign countries must only despise us all the more.... Join together, all of you who have kept your decent minds in these days of meanness! Cast off all petty party interests, let honour, loyalty and love for the homeland not be empty phrases!

November 1918

There has been such an eerie silence before the storm over Berlin since the end of October, all that is missing is the spark and the discharge is there! Berlin, the center of all intellectual life, the nurturing center of art and science, the center of the greatest industrial activity, on the one hand, the giver of everything good and beautiful. On the other side, again, the breeding ground for the worst impulses and impulses, the abode of all the worst criminals, the rejects of humanity, the revolutionary rabble who can only destroy, not build up, who cannot lose anything, but only in bloody upheaval with murder, robbery and looting has to win! There is also the branch of Russian Bolshevism and these wicked elements, supported by the Soviet embassy, are already beginning to stir. As unbelievable as it sounds, they are hugely popular and the weak Democratic government is letting them do what they want instead of interfering with fire and sword. Instead of coming together and forming a solid fighting bloc, the good citizen is left at a loss. Speeches are made and incendiary articles are written in the newspapers, but there is a lack of initiative. If the storm breaks out, everything will definitely go into chaos, everyone will try to save themselves and go under one by one. Our previous regime can be blamed for not educating the people sufficiently in national consciousness; the press system in particular should have been better supervised and controlled by the state! Because what educates the common man more than his newspaper? With the most ruthless severity, timely intervention had to be made where one was at work undermining the love for the people and homeland, the only source of our strength! They tried to win over these elements through false indulgence and clemency, the result was a strengthening of the un-German direction and the true friend of the fatherland saw his ideals, for which thousands gladly gave their blood, for which they sacrificed their everything, sullied by a brutal hand. As long as a good core, even if it is currently so small, lives in our people and does not die out, we have the indestructible hope that one day loyal German reception and feeling will awaken in the fatherland and will relentlessly demand accountability from those who, for criminal reasons incite the people with mean egoism, tear them apart with incendiary speeches and ignite the revolutionary fire!

The Commission left to accept the ceasefire conditions - unconditional! -. Is there anything else we can do now that Bolshevism, once promoted by the Social Democrats, is becoming increasingly widespread? Kiel, Lübeck, Braunschweig... Workers-Soldiers' Council dominate the field and, to add insult to injury, the cowardly and oath-breaking home troops are defecting to the revolutionaries in droves. The king's coat, which I have worn with honor and pride for so long, is desecrated! How difficult it is, how terribly difficult, to continue living!

Berlin and Munich are ablaze, judging by the broken connections! This precisely at the moment when we need to be strong in order to gain as much as possible from the enemy in the negotiations! It has happened: the revolution has broken out! Fate, go your way now! The wildest rumors are circulating in the countryside, which is cut off from all connections. Emperors and princes have been driven out, the Bavarian king has been driven out of Munich! Unbelievable! But now you can trust the mob to do anything! And I have to sit here doing nothing, especially these days! Oh, if only I had a company of my peacekeepers and we would soon have peace restored! I would hunt down the ringleaders; day and night they would have no peace until they had reaped their well-deserved reward: the hanging!

In the last few days I couldn't write: everything was too terrible! One piece of terrible news follows another, leaving no room for calm reflection. What people were afraid to suspect is now reality: the mob has become master overnight! Workers' and Soldiers' Councils everywhere, these canails have chosen the moment well for their work! These new ministers are agitators and shouters, party bigwigs and professional politicians of the worst kind! And nothing is harder to learn than to command well and govern well! What I saw weeks ago: in this chaos, the majority of our people were simply taken by surprise and then lost their heads. Poor Germany, where are you going?

I didn't have my diary in hand for over 4 weeks. I wanted to forget, not think, and yet it was impossible to calm down. Today, on Christmas Day, I'm looking through the pages again and asking you, dear diary, about memories. Like every year, like outside in front of the enemy, like as a child and as a man in peace, this time I decorated a tree just for myself: the Christ child above, with a small airplane underneath, looks at us and smiles. They know that you are my best advisor, my friend in good days and bad. There is snow outside, which I rarely saw in the field, and which I always wished for at Christmas because it brings the real Christmas atmosphere. Snow on German fir trees... and yet no Christmas spirit! This time the snow is like a big shroud that covers so much beauty, so much longing, so much ideal. Why do I always feel this cold shiver when I look out of the window over the fields, meadows and forest in their white dress, even though the cozy warmth surrounds me in my little room?

It's Christmas and yet completely different than usual! Did the time of revolution also bury our old German Christmas, the joyful hope, our childhood faith? Then, German people, if you have forgotten how to be a child, you are no more worth than being thrown into a pit and covered with earth! If earning money and rawness of heart and emotions mean strength for you, then you don't deserve to have thousands of people believe in you like they believe in themselves and bleed, gladly bleed and bleed to death! Free, free, finally free! This is how the masses roar, this is how they rage. One infects the other, everything forms a huge army of drunks, exiles, madmen! The happiness of the new freedom is shouted to each other. You call each other comrade and brother, fall into each other's arms, kiss... and suddenly the stupid citizen, the beer table hero, notices that his wallet is missing! Freedom, equality! How greedily the eyes sparkle! I ask the one who shouts the loudest, he looks at me with stupid eyes, thinks and stutters: "Me, I don't need to work anymore!" He is a worker who I asked about the nature of the new freedom... I ask a farmer who I previously saw walking arm in arm with the worker. First the same stupid face, then a blissful smile: "I don't have to deliver anymore, I can now sell my grain and my potatoes secretly and use the money..." I ask an elementary school teacher. A proud look from above. "Now we are the masters. We will finally get the salary that we have always fought for. Now we demand: now we must be given the social position that we deserve based on our intellectual superiority, our salary!" So this is what the happiness of the new freedom looks like! The worker no longer wants to work, but wages, high wages, money, money. The farmer believes, with the cleverness that is innate in him, that he can drain his fellow human beings, the city dwellers, the workers; He sees human duty as an annoying constraint, he only wants money, money... The elementary school teacher sees demands as his ideal.

Why do you look at me so sadly, my little tree? Only a few families have a Christmas tree and the children run around depressed. Devotional! Brutes mockingly disrupt the church service. That is now the “great thing”, that the freedom of the republic has brought us is a big field of rubble, slavery! And how I longed for this Germany after being outside from the beginning! High and low lay shoulder to shoulder in the same dirt, the officer next to his soldiers, all animated by one thought: to protect the fatherland! That was real democracy, that trench community, it and only it can be the foundation stone for a new building of our German nation! My dear little tree, have no fear: I remain firm and strong inside despite the external collapse and with me many, many Germans. The inner values remain and true inner greatness cannot be lost. German fir, grown in the German forest, a symbol of hope and loyalty, you should not remind us in vain that we too are children of the same earth. German Christmas in German lands! How rich we are for having such a feast! As long as we celebrate Christmas, German loyalty will not die out in German hearts!

[beardedmrbean]

Army officers who seized power in a coup in Gabon on Wednesday have named Gen Brice Oligui Nguema as the country's transitional leader.

Gen Nguema was earlier carried triumphally through the streets of the capital Libreville by his troops.

The deposed President, Ali Bongo, has appeared in a video at his home, calling on his "friends all over the world" to "make noise" on his behalf.

The former French colony is one of Africa's major oil producers.

Africa's coup pandemic spreads

The rise of military coups in Africa

Ali Bongo: The playboy prince now under house arrest

Mr Bongo's overthrow ended his family's 55-year hold on power in the Central African state.

Army officers appeared on TV in the early hours of Wednesday to say they had taken power.

They said they had annulled the results of Saturday's election in which Mr Bongo was declared the winner but which the opposition said was fraudulent.

The officers also said they had arrested one of Mr Bongo's sons for treason.

Within hours, generals met to discuss who would lead the transition and agreed by a unanimous vote to appoint Gen Nguema, former head of the presidential guard.

Gen Nguema told France's Le Monde newspaper that Gabonese people had had enough of Ali Bongo's rule, and that he should not have run for a third term.

"Everyone talks about this but no one takes responsibility," he said. "So the army decided to turn the page."

Crowds in Libreville and elsewhere celebrated the army's declaration.

But the coup was condemned by the UN, the African Union and France, which had close ties to the Bongo family.

The US state department urged Gabon's military to "preserve civilian rule" and urged "those responsible to release and ensure the safety of members of government". The UK condemned the "unconstitutional military takeover" of power.

There has long been simmering resentment of the Bongo family - it ruled Gabon for almost 56 years - and there has been public discontent over broader issues such as the cost of living.

"At first I was scared, but then I felt joy," a resident of Libreville, who requested anonymity, told the BBC. "I was scared because of the realisation that I am living through a coup, but the joy is because we've been waiting for so long for this regime to be overthrown."

Gen Nguema, 48, was absent from the first three statements read out by senior army officers on national television to announce the coup.

But he was named transitional leader soon after, and was carried through the streets in jubilant scenes.

He was aide-de-camp to the ousted leader's father, Omar Bongo, who ruled for almost 42 years until his death in 2009.

A former close colleague told AFP news agency that Gen Nguema had been extremely close to Omar Bongo, serving him from 2005 until his death in a Spanish hospital.

Under Ali Bongo he first worked as a military attache at Gabon's embassies in Morocco and Senegal.

But in 2018 he was made intelligence chief under the elite republican guard - Gabon's most powerful army unit - replacing Ali Bongo's half-brother Frederic Bongo, before getting promoted to general.

As in previous general elections in Gabon, there were serious concerns about the process in Saturday's vote.

Main opposition candidate Albert Ondo Ossa complained that many polling stations had lacked ballot papers bearing his name, while the coalition he represented said the names of some of those who had withdrawn from the presidential race had still been on the ballot sheet.

Both of Mr Bongo's previous wins were disputed as fraudulent by opponents. This time, controversial changes were made to voting papers just weeks before election day.

In 2018, he suffered a stroke which sidelined him for almost a year and led to calls for him to step aside.

The following year, a failed coup attempt saw mutinying soldiers sent to prison.

Read more: A simple guide to the coup in Gabon

[bastellator]

Violence and the Revolution

"The revolution made progress, not by its immediate tragicomic achievements but by the creation of a powerful, united counter-revolution, an opponent in combat with whom the party of overthrow ripened into a really revolutionary party."

-Marx, The Class Struggle in France (1850)

The question of whether the Revolution (here meant as any meaningful overthrowing of the present state of things, whatever its form) will be violent or peaceful, through the medium of liberal democracy or outside it, used to be interesting to me, but since reading this quote it no longer is. It doesn't matter whether the actual toppling of the world order comes violently or peacefully, it is what happens afterwards. Will the bourgeois let capital be exorcised from its host, or will they fight back. In the video game Disco Elysium by ZA/UM, with dialogue predominantly written by science-fiction author Robert Kurvitz, an old man, a veteran of a failed revolution, talks about capitalism's "mask of humanity". In times of peace, capitalism parades as liberal democracy, hamburgers and endless TV-channels, but when faced with a crisis, this mask begins to slip. In the global north, we very rarely see this slip, because we need to think that everything is alright and that we live in a democracy, but of course our society is built as much on violence as any authoritarian state, we just outsource out violence to the global south. When a political candidate challenges Capital here, Capital does not need to use violence, at least not here --- consider Jeremy Corbyn being subjected to a smear campaign as bombs drop on Palestine. Capitalism cannot simply do away with him, because that might actually shock people out of despondency --- liberal democracy, the human mask of Capital, stays on. Optics in Chilean politics do not matter to Capital, only the flow of resources. If copper stops flowing, they might try some non-violent sabotaging of the economy to turn public opinion against the socialist president, but when that fails (the people who elected him were largely poor to start with, so they might not have perceived the change as much as hoped for), the mask will slip off. But this wasn't just about copper, the important thing was always to enforce capitalist realism (a concept created by Mark Fisher to describe that feeling of anything but capitalism being possible). If Chile had shown the world that, not only was socialism possible, but it was possible through peaceful means, through conventional liberal democracy, other countries would follow suit. If the proletariat of Chile could do it, so could others. So, the CIA backed a coup by the general Augusto Pinochet to "reinstate democracy". Many conservatives in Chile truly believed that this would happen, that the communists would be thrown out and that order would prevail. They were surprised when the junta refused to relinquish power and reinstate democracy. And the global north did nothing to about this. Instead, they sent Milton Friedman's goons to run their experiments on the country. They sent Margaret Thatcher to have tea with Pinochet (a recent example of a similar thing is how Venezuela and Cuba were refused entry to an OAS event, while Biden had a joint press conference with permanently constipated and corona-infected fascist moron Jair Bolsonaro). And of course, this is because liberal "democracy" is simply the human mask, the PR-trick of Capital and capitalism.

So where am I getting with this? To return to the quote that opened this post, I want to leave you with this: however the revolution happens, the counter-revolution will be swift and brutal, and we must be ready for that. They will first try to nip it in the bud, as they did with Corbyn and Sanders. Then they will try to choke the country, to show that the system does not work, like they are doing to Cuba. Failing that, they will do what they did to Allende, what they did to Patrice Lumumba --- they will swiftly and brutally put an end to the revolution. The choice is not ours whether violence will happen before we can come out on the other side --- it is inevitable --- and we must always be ready for it.