AHC: F*ck Up Europe

I don't think it's completely ASB for Western Europe to erupt in socialist revolutions in the 1920s. Remember, the region had just gone through an apocalyptic nightmare of a war, which had been supported by the major democratic parties while the socialists had often been opposed.
However in the UK you've got the Labour Party legally accepted, expanding, and even in government before the end of the '20s, as a "safety valve" that gives British socialists a viable non-revolutionary option...
 
Someone being in charge can - and depending on circumstances quite possibly will - be someone risen from the ranks. Elected, even, God forbid.
That was my point. They rose through the ranks, so what drove them to make the effort to rise? It takes an exceptionally driven person to reach the leadership position of a revolution. Also you might have elections at some point, but with the violent nature of a revolution anyone elected early on will likely either be dead or a deeply changed person by the end of it.

No, it's not a given. "Winding up in charge somehow" does not mean that they're some kind of separate group distinct from the common revolutionaries.
Nope, they won't see them as a distinct group. That's typical of the non-ideological revolutions, like the Americans (or probably the Dutch) where one ruling class is trying to supplant another. They will however likely see themselves as the one person who knows what's going on and how it can be fixed.

Because generalizing that revolutionaries are mad with power is easier than looking at each revolution and its circumstances as different.
Yeah, because otherwise we spend 80% of the time just repeating that this leader went mad with power and then so did that leader, etc. Plus we're not talking about any actual revolutions here, so we need to run on generalisation.
 
That was my point. They rose through the ranks, so what drove them to make the effort to rise? It takes an exceptionally driven person to reach the leadership position of a revolution. Also you might have elections at some point, but with the violent nature of a revolution anyone elected early on will likely either be dead or a deeply changed person by the end of it.

And that describes the people involved in general, so why does this make for some process encouraging meglomaniac leaders?

Nope, they won't see them as a distinct group. That's typical of the non-ideological revolutions, like the Americans (or probably the Dutch) where one ruling class is trying to supplant another. They will however likely see themselves as the one person who knows what's going on and how it can be fixed.

And so what? That's a far cry from "we, the pure, and you, unable to carry the torch".

This is not a very good basis to argue that they're going to hold on to power at all costs just because.

I don't think anyone, certainly not me, is arguing it can't happen - but if and where it does, it will be because of reasons more specific than "typical revolutionary" generalizations that sound like something (coincidentally, I hope) straight out of archreactionary hostility.

Yeah, because otherwise we spend 80% of the time just repeating that this leader went mad with power and then so did that leader, etc. Plus we're not talking about any actual revolutions here, so we need to run on generalisation.

No, because otherwise we actually look at a given situation and see why it happened. Generalizing about revolutions requires treating where they happen as if it was all basically the same, which it very much wasn't.
 
And that describes the people involved in general, so why does this make for some process encouraging meglomaniac leaders?
Because the people at the top hold the feelings more strongly, so either their more fanatical about the cause than the other revolutionaries or they're there to gain power for themselves. If they're fanatics they'll not trust those who aren't 'true believers', whereas if they're self motivated the results should be obvious.

And so what? That's a far cry from "we, the pure, and you, unable to carry the torch".

This is not a very good basis to argue that they're going to hold on to power at all costs just because.
Well the simple fact is that the costs of holding power in that situation are pretty minimal, so unless the beginnings of a second revolution start it's easy for them to hold on to power. They could probably do it without really realising what they're doing, feeling that the situation still isn't stable enough for elections or something.

I don't think anyone, certainly not me, is arguing it can't happen - but if and where it does, it will be because of reasons more specific than "typical revolutionary" generalizations that sound like something (coincidentally, I hope) straight out of archreactionary hostility.
I am no reactionary, I simply believe that the revolution is the best way to shoot progress in the foot. Either the revolution fails and hurts all progressive efforts, the revolutionaries take power and turn into dictators who shove reforms through in a half thought out unstable manner that in the long run damages progressive efforts, or the revolutionaries take power and implement slight reforms that could have happened a little bit slower withouth the revolution and the cost of a lot less blood. In very few situations would I support a revolution starting. Once one has begun that the last option I mentioned is the best of the three, but gradual reform is still the best option.

No, because otherwise we actually look at a given situation and see why it happened. Generalizing about revolutions requires treating where they happen as if it was all basically the same, which it very much wasn't.
Very true, the revolutions are all very individual affairs, however the fact that we're talking about hypothetical revolutions 50+ years after the POD in societies that did not exist OTL with people that did not exist OTL what's important is the fact that across the vast varieties of revolutions things have almost always turned out badly, especially when there's hostile counter revolutionary countries around.

Why is everyone talking about revolutions? Couldn't a war really fuck things up in europe too?
A war will have a winner, or a stalemate, or something like that. The winner gets the colonies, at least enough of them to violate the OP. Or in a stalemate the British get the colonies.
 
Because the people at the top hold the feelings more strongly, so either their more fanatical about the cause than the other revolutionaries or they're there to gain power for themselves. If they're fanatics they'll not trust those who aren't 'true believers', whereas if they're self motivated the results should be obvious.
Or they're just those in charge, without needing to be power-hungry or ideologically blind.

Not everyone who wants to be a leader is a maniac.

Well the simple fact is that the costs of holding power in that situation are pretty minimal, so unless the beginnings of a second revolution start it's easy for them to hold on to power. They could probably do it without really realising what they're doing, feeling that the situation still isn't stable enough for elections or something.
Again, why are we assuming some sort of system where they represent some kind of autocratic body?

I am no reactionary, I simply believe that the revolution is the best way to shoot progress in the foot. Either the revolution fails and hurts all progressive efforts, the revolutionaries take power and turn into dictators who shove reforms through in a half thought out unstable manner that in the long run damages progressive efforts, or the revolutionaries take power and implement slight reforms that could have happened a little bit slower withouth the revolution and the cost of a lot less blood. In very few situations would I support a revolution starting. Once one has begun that the last option I mentioned is the best of the three, but gradual reform is still the best option.
I agree to some extent, but I do not agree that this is because revolutionaries are wannabe dictators or madmen.

Very true, the revolutions are all very individual affairs, however the fact that we're talking about hypothetical revolutions 50+ years after the POD in societies that did not exist OTL with people that did not exist OTL what's important is the fact that across the vast varieties of revolutions things have almost always turned out badly, especially when there's hostile counter revolutionary countries around. [/quiote]

What's important is that (for example) the Russian revolution turned out badly for particular reasons. It is not useful to generalize based on such things to say that a revolution in a different set of circumstances will happen as badly.

If there was some innate thing about revolutions that made them go awry, they would be as bad in the US and Netherlands as in Russia or (in the sense we usually refer to Revolutionary France) France.
 
I see this as being frighteningly plausible. Just have the successful representative governments of the world bite the dust, though revolutions or national humiliation, and viola, nobody wants to emulate them and people will consider representation to be a failed ideology.
 
Or they're just those in charge, without needing to be power-hungry or ideologically blind.
Okay, fanatic may have been a bit of a stretch, but they're still likely to care about the cause more than the average member of the revolution. Something drove them to leadership. People very rarely decide they want to be a leader just because. They either want power or they want the cause to work better than most.

Not everyone who wants to be a leader is a maniac.
I never said that. Maniacs probably don't last as long in power.

Again, why are we assuming some sort of system where they represent some kind of autocratic body?
Because of the nature of what a revolution is. A revolution is military, and a military is autocratic. If you start having referendums over which town to attack next the enemy will be besieging you before you're done counting the votes.

I agree to some extent, but I do not agree that this is because revolutionaries are wannabe dictators or madmen.
As I said, many probably don't really realise what's happening, they're just so worried about the instability of the new order they helped to build that they get over protective and slip into autocracy by mistake. Or get corrupted by power. Madmen don't usually get very far, unless they go mad on the way.

If there was some innate thing about revolutions that made them go awry, they would be as bad in the US and Netherlands as in Russia or (in the sense we usually refer to Revolutionary France) France.
The US and Netherlands were largely non-ideological revolutions, so the leadership just didn't care as much. They wanted to maintain the status quo, or at least what they saw as the proper status quo. A pro status quo revolt has a much easier time of things than one trying to change the system. I mean the Dutch effectively exchanged a foreign monarch for a local one (it just took a while for their royal status to be made official), that's not much of a revolution (and also effectively not that different from what happened longterm to the French or most other revolutions), while the Americans changed almost nothing, and both those revolts had the support of major powers. Look at how Latin American has suffered under coups and counter coups for centuries, or what's happened in various African nations. Most revolutions go badly. They're highly diverse events, and yet things turning out well is a rarity. Heck look at Egypt today. Libya's having a bit more luck, but they're another example of getting foreign assistance.
 
I like the idea of a more successful Marxist Movement. If the Revolutions of 1849 had gone a little differently and a lasting Marxist Culture developed, a second or third round of Marxist Revolutions might take place iduring the worst hours of VIctorian Excess.

If Marxists took over in France and Germany even England in the 1880's, Europe could abandon its colonies and decay under the poor management of a Proto-Communist State.
 

whitecrow

Banned
Here is an idea I had:

Germany doesn't unify (thus eliminating one European power). France and UK are the 2 Western European powers, still at odds with each other. Than a war breaks out between the two in late 19th / early 20th century ruining both of them.

Plausible?
 

whitecrow

Banned
Here is an idea I had:

Germany doesn't unify (thus eliminating one European power). France and UK are the 2 Western European powers, still at odds with each other. Than a war breaks out between the two in late 19th / early 20th century ruining both of them.

Plausible?
Any thoughts?
 
Maybe there could be something that sends Marx and Engels on the road, maybe into India, accompanied by some frustrated would-be latter-day Jacobins, and they set up in some cafe circuit of sorts, and they start publishing with local like-minded folks...
 
Top