[...] having done Revolutions, it makes me want to go back and get a master’s degree in finance with a particular interest in the history of banking. I am truly not 100 percent qualified to answer some of these questions. But what I do know is that it has far less to do with out-and-out debt or the size of the debt or what kind of deficits you are running, as it does with confidence in the regime. There’s a very famous thing where the debt load that Louis XIV left upon his death was greater than the debt load that was facing Louis XVI in 1786, when they said, “Sir, the monarchy is broke. We cannot get any more money.” And the reason they could not get any more money is because the bankers in Paris would not lend them any more money.
The regime, back in the early 1700s, was able to continue to draw loans and pay its debt and get back on its feet, in a way that Louis XV couldn’t—even though, in objective nominal terms, it was a lower debt load than Louis XIV had left. And so it comes down to both: how confident people are in the regime’s future ability to pay back these debts, and then also, is there a clique of bankers who think that they can use this to their advantage?
True. There are some CA gems (the Sam Harris take down is so thorough I haven't even finished it yet). This one has its uses but it's still very surface level and probably only useful for people who aren't terminally online leftists like us. Like Duncan's analysis in your quote isn't really convincing for me.
What even is confidence? Why would they lose confidence? Why wouldn't the King just confiscate their money? It's the fucking King. He can do whatever he wants. All these question Duncan can't answer because he is a lib and doesn't know historical materialism. I only listened to the Russian Revolution eps so I don't know what he did in the French Revolution season so did he link it to the rise of Capitalism? If not then the analysis falls short. I'm also not a fan of people thinking history is a series of events that happen. I don't think it's intentional but if you make your history podcast like a long running HBO series that's what people will take away.
What? Of course they can lose confidence. If the king expropriates one bank, the rest are going to get the fuck out of dodge before they also get nabbed. Foreign lenders are also pretty vital. Think about how the IMF controls policy of ostensibly souverign nations.
I'm not saying there is no reason to lose confidence I'm saying if you're gonna make your central argument that the loss of confidence the deciding factor then you must also explain how that loss of confidence came to be.
Who cares? They can't take their factories or land with them lol. And like the conditions in 1700s Europe were so different that you shouldn't make comparisons between foreign lenders then and today.
If you read the interview, Duncan said that he's the opposite of an expert in finance and hesitated even giving his opinion. His broad point is that in revolutions, a lot depends not on whether a state is strong, but weather the state is perceived as strong, ie confidence. When bankers become unsure of the stability of a government and fear loss of a loan, they can end up creating actual instability by withholding further credit.
It's similar to a bank run. As long as depositers have trust in their bank, everything operates ok. If depositers are unsure of their safety of their deposit though, it creates a feedback loop in which some people withdrawing creates further distrust in the institution and stimulates additional withdrawal.
I did read that part and it doesn't fucking matter. Money is fake and all the financial BS doesn't justify his underlaying argument.
What would the materialist answer be?
The French Revolution is the last gasp of the remnants of the feudal system. The change over to the capitalist mode of production and social relationship requires the complete destruction of the ancien régime. The main drivers of the French Revolution were the new class of merchants and lawyers that reached their limit of growth under the ancien régime. The next step was the privatisation of the King's means of Production and the creation of a new class out of the now landless peasants. It's the textbook example of a bourgeois revolution.
That's exactly the point. CA is useful for moving libs to the left. It's not not aimed at us because we're already here.
So it's useless to post it here.
People here want to grow the left. One way to do that is to identify persuadable libs and hit them with radicalizing content. Most of the stuff posted here is no surprise to active users -- the idea is to (1) give active users a bunch of content they can radicalize others with and (2) radicalize people who wander in here to check the place out.