I hear the French Revolution was liberal. I heard she started liberalism. It is said that the left was then formed, which is seemingly liberal. And seemingly this liberalism is guilty of the crimes that were committed during and after the revolution.
So I have a question for those who feel that way: delight indicate which circumstantial elements of liberalisation have led to crimes. Did the abolition of state privileges lead to the guillotine? Did the massacre in Wandea lead to a simplification in feudal burdens? Did freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, free market, private property and the regulation of state power lead to terror?
Because if the French revolution was the implementation of liberalism, it means that after 1789 France became a little and little forced country, little centralist, little bureaucratic and more free. The state then ceased imposing on citizens religion, views, prices, taxes, props, military conscription and loyalty to ideology. Is that so? That's right!
The French Revolution began with slogans that were partially liberal. any feudal privileges were abolished, state order was struck, human rights and citizens were declared, equality before the law was discussed. These were elements that could be considered liberal in the classical sense: anti-feudal, anti-privileged, anti-absolute.
However, the revolution did not halt at liberalism. The revolution devoured liberalism and replaced it with Jacobinism!
And Jacobism is not liberalism. Jacobism is simply a state political religion. It's a cult of abstract people, in whose name circumstantial people get the right to execution another circumstantial people. It is centralization, terror, coercion, props, price control, conscience control, war with the Church, political guillotine and ideological training of society.
The French Revolution was evil and criminal — that is simply a fact. However, her crimes did not consequence from the fact that the state was besides weak, besides small, besides liberal, and not forced. Her crimes resulted from the revolutionaries taking over the state and utilizing it as their own panic apparatus. They murdered not due to the fact that the state didn't bother them due to the fact that it was liberal. They murdered due to the fact that you had in your hand, and the state is always utilized for terror.
So the question is: were the crimes of French revolutionaries due to the free market, private property, freedom of speech and state restrictions? Or was it that the revolutionary power felt that it could transform society by force according to its own ideology?
If individual says the French revolution was liberal and then points to terror, Wanda, confiscation, spiritual persecution and state dictatorship, then he confuses the sign with the mechanism. It's kind of like calling a fire a heating system, due to the fact that it gives heat too.
Liberalism is not a cult of promiscuity. Liberalism is not anti-clerical hysteria. Liberalism is not a guillotine for a priest, a peasant, an aristocrat, a merchant, a political opponent or anyone who doesn't fit in with a fresh man. Liberalism is simply a request that the law protects freedom of speech, private property, freedom of contract, freedom of conscience, freedom of education, voluntary action and the simplification of state violence.
So if liberalism is guilty of the crime of revolution, it means that taxation cuts lead to guillotine. Privatization leads to slaughter. Freedom of speech leads to dictatorship. economical freedom leads to state terror. The deficiency of censorship leads to mass executions. Yeah? This is absurd!
The French Revolution was not a simple implementation of liberalism. It was a mixture of various currents: antifeudalism, rationalism, anticlericalism, centralism, republicanism, Jacobinism, war mobilization, and ideological pride. In the first phase, it had liberal elements. In the Jacobin phase, she became antiliberal. And its most bloody effects came not from freedom, but from an ideological state that felt that it had the right to force people to happiness, virtue and progress.
Satan said, "I will not serve." It was a rebellion against God. And on this analogy many people build a false argument: rebellion is evil, revolution was rebellion, liberalism is rebellion against power, and so liberalism is Satanic. This is simply a incorrect analogy!
Satan rebelled against good. People sometimes rebel against tyranny. It's not the same. Rebellion against good God is rebellion against good. Rebellion against an evil man who wants to regulation the life of force can be a morally good act. The tyrants must be revolted. God is not a tyrant. God does not usage physical force to force a man to serve. He's not going to jail for refusing. He's not imposing a fine. He's not sending a bailiff. He's not building an office to collect forced labor.
Rebellion against God is libertism. Rebellion against bully force can be liberalism.
Liberalism is not even a simple rebellion against power. Liberalism says I will not service anyone. Liberalism says no 1 must be forced to service with violence. That's the fundamental difference. You're allowed to work. Power may be exercised if the subordinates accept it. Deals are moral. Force is simply a suspect. Good must be served, but good service is not the same as forced service to man, office, organization or state.
The French revolutionaries did not rebel so that no 1 would force anyone. They rebelled to force themselves. They didn't mean for a man to halt kneeling before violence. It was about him kneeling before fresh violence. From the people. From the nation. In front of the republic. Before the committee. Before the abstract political idol, whose priests were revolutionaries.
This is why the French Revolution did not refute the logic of tyranny. She upgraded it!
The old absolutism said: the state is king. The fresh Jacobinism said: the state is simply a people. In practice, however, the people did not rule. Those who claimed to talk for the people ruled. And that's a lot more dangerous than a specified monarchy, due to the fact that at least the monarch performs under his own name. Ideological dictator hides behind abstraction.
In this sense, the French Revolution was 1 of the beginnings of a modern ideological state — antiliberal. States that are not satisfied with the fact that a citizen does not steal, murder, and keep contracts. It besides wants the citizen to think right, believe right, celebrate right, talk right, and hatred right enemies. It's not liberal. It's Jacobinism.
Of course, it can be said that the revolution started with liberal slogans. Yes, she did. However, the fact that the illness starts with fever does not indicate that fever is simply a disease. The fact that a thief enters the home through the door does not indicate that a door is simply a thief. The fact that revolutionaries utilized the word "freedom" does not indicate that they exercised freedom. Words are not evidence. Mechanisms are evidence.
And the mechanics was simple: taking over the apparatus of the state, centralization, coercion, terror, confiscation, force against the Church, force against conventional communities, war against local opposition and the effort to make a fresh man by the state. It's not a liberal mechanism. It is simply a mechanics of Jacobic, socialist, statistic, totalitarian. This is communism.
Therefore, the claim that the French Revolution was a triumph of liberalism is stupid and harmful. It's stupid due to the fact that it confuses the first slogans with later practice. It's harmful due to the fact that it allows liberalism to be charged with another people's crimes. And erstwhile people are told that freedom leads to guillotine, it is easier to convince them that more states, more controls, more taxes, more officials, more bans and more coercion are needed for security.
This is the old number of all the staff members: first to attribute the freedoms of crimes committed by the state and then to request even more states to defend us from these crimes.
The French Revolution was libertarian, Jacobian and statistic much more than liberal. Libertyńska, due to the fact that it struck religion, tradition and moral order not in the name of freedom of conscience, but in the name of fresh ideological intolerance. Jakobinska due to the fact that she felt that political virtue justified violence. Etatistic, due to the fact that in practice it strengthened the state as a tool for rebuilding society. Liberalism is something else.
Liberalism is freedom, pluralism, tolerance, voluntaryism, private property and the free market. This was not in Jacobin France. There triumphed not liberalism, but political religion of violence. The apparatus of coercion was not overthrown there. There 1 apparatus of coercion was replaced by another. People were not freed from the state there. There the state was painted, called a republic, put on an altar and was ordered to worship.
Wandea is the best example. People who wanted to live on their own, traditionally, locally, religiously and independently of the ideological center, were treated as enemies of the fresh order. It wasn't liberal tolerance. It was panic towards a community that didn't want to be reworked according to a Parisian pattern.
The same is actual of the Church. Liberalism can request the separation of the Church from the state. But what is different is the separation, and what is different is the submission of the clergy to the state, the confiscation of property, the persecution of priests, and the fight against religion as a competitive spiritual order. Liberalism says: the state should not force faith. Jacobism says: a state has the right to break religion if religion disturbs the state. These are 2 different things.
Liberalism should besides be distinguished from liberalism. These words are similar, but they mean something different. Liberalism primarily concerns the boundaries of coercion. Libertyism concerns the dissolution of moral, spiritual and moral ties. Liberalism says: force against a peaceful man must not be used. Libertyism says: The conventional moral order is an obstacle to ridicule, dissolve or destroy.
You can be a liberal and a spiritual man. You can be liberal and conservative. You can be a liberal and defender of a conventional family. due to the fact that liberalism doesn't order promiscuity. Liberalism forbids coercion. That's a fundamental difference that propaganda doesn't want to understand, due to the fact that if it did, it would lose its favourite baton.
In Poland, these concepts were mixed on intent for years. Liberals were called parties that had small in common with liberalism. Liberalism was called anti-clericalism, moral revolution, social democratic etatism, European bureaucracy or average political marketing. And then they said to people, look, liberalism is decay, chaos, promiscuity and revolution. So you request a strong state. It's not liberal. This is language fraud.
Such parties as PO (today KO), PiS, PSL or SLD (today Left) for years have been and are primarily parties of power. Their programs are marketing, not doctrine. any spoke of freedom erstwhile they were in opposition, and the state expanded erstwhile they ruled. Others talked about tradition and besides expanded the state. The 3rd spoke of social justice, or redistribution of another people's money. The 4th was all the same to sit at the table. These are not consistently liberal parties. These are state apparatus management parties.
The state apparatus always has its priests. Officials, regulators, controllers, redistributors, experts in another people's lives and employees of another people's work. To them liberalism is simply a deadly enemy due to the fact that liberalism asks the simplest question: why are you needed? Why should an adult ask your permission? Why would he give you money? Why should he fund his own control? Why should he service individual who can't stand the market?
That is why liberalism must be slandered. You gotta convince people that freedom is simply a guillotine. That the marketplace is exploitation. That property is violence. That voluntary is chaos. That state restrictions are barbaric. That rebellion against coercion is Satan's rebellion. This is propaganda.
It's truly the another way around. It wasn't freedom that created terror. panic created an ideological state. It wasn't the free marketplace that murdered Wandea. She killed a revolutionary army. It's not private property she cut off her head. They were cut down by political power. It was not liberalism that made people kneel before the fresh religion of the republic. He made them kneel to Jacobinism.
The russian Revolution in this respect was not the other of the French Revolution, but its later, more consistent and more murderous descendant. There were large words again. There was freedom, equality, people, justice and liberation again. And it ended again with state, terror, political police, looting, fighting religion, eliminating property and murdering people in the name of a bright future.
It's not a coincidence. An perfect state always works that way. First he promises liberation. Then he finds enemies of liberation. Then he creates a apparatus to fight the enemies of liberation. And in the end, all average individual becomes a possible enemy, due to the fact that a average individual wants to live, work, believe, rise children, own property and have sacred peace. So it's disturbing ideology.
Classical liberalism is simply a denial of this logic. He doesn't want to make a fresh man. I don't want to save humanity through office. He does not want to build paradise by tax, censorship, concessions, work and police. Liberalism says modestly: don't beat, don't steal, keep your contracts, don't impose force on others. That is why he is so hated by all the designers of the false paradise.
So do not be deceived by propaganda that mixes liberalism with libertism, freedom with promiscuity, rebellion against tyranny against God, and a revolutionary state of panic with state restrictions. These are false associations. They didn't happen by chance. They service to keep people obedient to the apparatus of coercion.
The French Revolution does not prove that liberalism leads to crime. It proves the opposite: that free slogans, if taken over by state ideologists, can be turned into a tool of tyranny. It proves that the word "freedom" itself does not warrant anything. 1 must look not at the flag, but at the mechanism. And the liberal mechanics is simple: little coercion, more voluntary. The Jacobin, socialist, communist mechanics is equally simple: more states, more ideologies, more violence.
And that is why the French revolution, in its bloodiest and most distinctive form, was not a triumph of liberalism. She was a betrayal of liberal slogans by state fanaticism. It was the birth of modern temptation, which then returns in socialism, communism, social democracy and any another strategy that believes that man must be arranged top-down.
There is no liberalism in Poland. And liberalism has never truly ruled in the last 2 100 years. There have been liberal slogans, liberal environments, liberal publicists, liberal intuitions, and liberal factions. However, there was no state of liberal or liberal government.
Poland has been plagued for generations by socialism, statism, bureaucracy, regulation, fiscalism and the cult of state care. Free marketplace capitalism has always been restricted, suspected, taxed, licensed, regulated and moral blackmailed. A private initiative was tolerated erstwhile it was milking. Died erstwhile she wanted to be truly free.
Donald Tusk is not a liberal. Adrian Zandberg is not a liberal. Poland is not even a liberal democracy — whatever this vague expression would mean today. It is simply a social-bureaucratic state, which sometimes dresses in a liberal costume, but it is the same as the alleged liberalism of the French Revolution.
The classics of liberalism are Mises, Hayek or Friedman. In Poland, Szielski, Kisielewski or Korwin. You might like them or not like them. You can agree with them or argue with them. However, we must not pretend that what they preached was carried out in Poland. It didn't. Poland was never a country implementing classical liberalism, or ASE (Austrian School of Economics). We willingly realize Marxism-keynesism. Poland was and is simply a country of office, tax, permits, control, redistribution and eternal suspicion towards a man who wants to live on his own account.
Therefore, do not let yourself be told that we live in a country destroyed by liberalism. This is 1 of the biggest absurdities of the Polish public debate. Poland destroys not liberalism, but its lack. Not besides much freedom, but besides much country. Not a free market, but a state social growth sucked into work, property and entrepreneurship.
Left is not liberal. The left is libertarian, socialist, or statistic — frequently all at once. Liberalism is not an opposition to conservatism. Liberalism is an opposition to coercion. A Conservative can be liberal if he understands that tradition is not defended by an office, but by culture, family, Church, property and voluntary social order.
Libertyn wants to dissolve morality. The socialist wants to take over. Jakobin wants to rebuild a man. The Communist wants terror. The bureaucrat wants to manage everything. The Liberal wants them all to leave him alone. This is why liberalism in Poland did not lose. He's never truly been allowed to play.
Grzegorz GPS Swiderski
]]>Twitter.com/gps65]]>
]]>t.me/CanalBlogeraGPS]]>
