Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - 16 members, or so (So Far...) voted "no" to Issue #4 on the "6 Issues" Thread

roachboy · 12-01-2007, 06:13 PM

uh...i dont think the digressions about the aristocracy work too well, loquitor:

donning my workhat, then, and compressing stuff shamelessly at the same time (historians like to blab, you see):

the aristocratic "revolt" that triggered the french revolution (1787) happened because the crown defaulted on the bonds it had floated to pay for intervening in the american revolution. that is how the estates general came to be convened--and it was around this that things started to fall apart.

the problems that faced the aristocracy by that point had nothing to do with the fact that they were an aristocracy and everything with the particulars of the situation the aristocracy was in by 1787--much of it had to do with the actions of louis 14 in centralizing the court, forcing the aristocracy to attend court, which put a huge strain on their resources, most of which were generated by land holdings, the revenue from which was static for a long long time. this strain was part of the point of the court--to subordinate the aristocracy, make them dependent on the crown for patronage, support, military commissions, etc.

you're wrong about the chaos of the french taxation systems before the revolution as well--they WERE about redistributing wealth.
the problem was not that, but rather that there were lots of such systems and no co-ordination between them...it's a confusing mess to read about even. if you're interested, read tocqueville's "ancien regime" on this, the best analysis of the financial problems this created, the link between this chaotic non-system and large-scale undertakings like war--the crown paid for wars by floating bonds--which were also a way to redistribute wealth.....

the main changes the revolution brought about really was the centralization of taxation, the rationalization of the processes and of the wealth redistribution functions they served. these functions are the central occupations of the modern bureaucratic state. that is what it does, at its core. tocqueville sees the main consequence of the french revolution as the rise of the modern state--and that this had nothing to do with what the revolutionaries thought they were doing.

the points:

1. the modern state is fundamentally different from what preceded it, and it makes no sense to jump around it as if this wasn't the case and make comparative arguments as if nothing changed after bonaparte.

2. wealth redistribution works in a lot of directions. if you think of it that way, it is absurd to argue that taxation is not about this.

3. (more to the side of the above) the effects/meanings of social inequality are ALWAYS contextual--you treat inequality as some metaphysical construct in your post, and the end of it simply runs to its conclusion the problems with thinking in this way about social inequality.

by contextual in the modern context, i mean political.
you cant wish the political away by thinking in terms of essence.

i decided along the way that i'm not going to do anything with the first point in your post----in the period of william the conqueror, the entire social system was so differently organized that it makes no sense to draw on it for a point about the functions of taxation in the modern period. it's comparing wombats to toaster ovens or some such.

12-01-2007, 06:13 PM	#43 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	uh...i dont think the digressions about the aristocracy work too well, loquitor: donning my workhat, then, and compressing stuff shamelessly at the same time (historians like to blab, you see): the aristocratic "revolt" that triggered the french revolution (1787) happened because the crown defaulted on the bonds it had floated to pay for intervening in the american revolution. that is how the estates general came to be convened--and it was around this that things started to fall apart. the problems that faced the aristocracy by that point had nothing to do with the fact that they were an aristocracy and everything with the particulars of the situation the aristocracy was in by 1787--much of it had to do with the actions of louis 14 in centralizing the court, forcing the aristocracy to attend court, which put a huge strain on their resources, most of which were generated by land holdings, the revenue from which was static for a long long time. this strain was part of the point of the court--to subordinate the aristocracy, make them dependent on the crown for patronage, support, military commissions, etc. you're wrong about the chaos of the french taxation systems before the revolution as well--they WERE about redistributing wealth. the problem was not that, but rather that there were lots of such systems and no co-ordination between them...it's a confusing mess to read about even. if you're interested, read tocqueville's "ancien regime" on this, the best analysis of the financial problems this created, the link between this chaotic non-system and large-scale undertakings like war--the crown paid for wars by floating bonds--which were also a way to redistribute wealth..... the main changes the revolution brought about really was the centralization of taxation, the rationalization of the processes and of the wealth redistribution functions they served. these functions are the central occupations of the modern bureaucratic state. that is what it does, at its core. tocqueville sees the main consequence of the french revolution as the rise of the modern state--and that this had nothing to do with what the revolutionaries thought they were doing. the points: 1. the modern state is fundamentally different from what preceded it, and it makes no sense to jump around it as if this wasn't the case and make comparative arguments as if nothing changed after bonaparte. 2. wealth redistribution works in a lot of directions. if you think of it that way, it is absurd to argue that taxation is not about this. 3. (more to the side of the above) the effects/meanings of social inequality are ALWAYS contextual--you treat inequality as some metaphysical construct in your post, and the end of it simply runs to its conclusion the problems with thinking in this way about social inequality. by contextual in the modern context, i mean political. you cant wish the political away by thinking in terms of essence. i decided along the way that i'm not going to do anything with the first point in your post----in the period of william the conqueror, the entire social system was so differently organized that it makes no sense to draw on it for a point about the functions of taxation in the modern period. it's comparing wombats to toaster ovens or some such. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-01-2007 at 06:20 PM..