|
1) Given that my specialty within Russian history is the revolutionary period between 1905 and 1924, I sometimes forget that some of the facts I take for granted perhaps aren't as well known in the rest of the world. My whole point here is that once the Bolsheviks seized power in November (to us) 1917, they instantly transformed from a terrorist group with a few legitimate politicians into a legitimate political force with a bureaucracy in place to deal with more than terrorist goals (at least in St. Petersburg/Petrograd). Call it magic if you want, but on that night in November (or October if you're going to insist on the old calendar) the Bolsheviks made an unprecedented jump from terrorists to politicians.
I certainly grant that I don't have nearly the depth in the French revolution, but I recall that the various parties in power did more than just consolidate power. Unless Paris and the rest of France existed in a state of anarchy, there was a government that, while it may not have had a budget in our sense, did administer to the basic needs of the population, i.e. food, military protection, general safety from criminal elements. Given that the "terror" was for all intents and purposes aimed at "enemies of the state" (whatever that state may have been at the time), I argue that while some of those caught up in the proceedings were certainly innocent of any crime (including formenting the downfall of those in power), the power brokers (for lack of a better term) used "terror" as a way to secure their positions as representatives of a legitimate government. Given that France did not suffer a complete collapse and managed to defend itself from its enemies and that the Convention remained intacted throughout the Terror, I still think that this is a legitimate political movement. I don't think that we can use budgeting as the only benchmark to decide the legitmacy or illegitimacy of a regime since there are several other functions served by governments that were met by the Convention. Remember that the First Constitution was passed during the Terror, which certainly leds a lot of credence to my arguement.
As far as denunciations go, I think that the French ones were eeriely similar to the Soviet ones in that all of them came from all quarters of society. The other similarity is that these denunciations were made TO those in power. The authorities, such as they were, were responsible for deciding upon the legitimacy of those denunciations and applying the appropriate punishment. We all accept explicitely that those denunciations were crocks of shit, but that's irrelevent.
2) I should have been clearer with my earlier post with examples of "well-organized militaries", especially since I had several in mind. I am thinking of the factions within Yugoslavia that were certainly guilty of committing war crimes but not of terrorism. Also, the factions within the Congo in the mid 90's would certainly qualify as legitimate military organizations whose primary focus was meeting their enemies on the battlefield. Perhaps that concept of "battlefield" needs to fit into my definition somehow since it seems to be a primary difference between soldiers in combat and terrorists. A military is going to be easily identifiable and recognizable while a terrorist organization exists in the shadows. The problem that immediately springs to mind is intelligence agents (spies) since they must exist in the shadows as well and I don't think there is anyone that will equate spies and terrorists. I certainly agree that the definition needs to be finetuned, but I still reject the notion that a soldier can be a terrorist.
3) Perhaps I erred in trying to apply morality to a bureaucracy, especially given my knowledge of the Soviet bureaucracy that spang up at the end of the Civil War. However, my point is that those in control of the bureaucracy have to consider morality (at least in theory) when directing it. A bureaucracy by its very nature cannot be leaderless since it will grind to a halt very quickly. While those in control may make decisions that seem immoral to us (see Stalin), I certainly agree with your point that the actors within the bureaucracy carry out their tasks within a moral vacuum.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|