revolutions nothing ignites the soul quite like the sight of Ordinary People defying the chains of tyranny the air crackles with the energy of rebellion each shout a cry for justice each step a March towards Freedom the old order trembles as the people rise fists clenched Hearts Ablaze made of iron that was so RIT of me I am never doing that again in those moments history is written not by the powerful but by the brave who dare to dream of a world reborn From the Ashes of the old or at least that's how people usually say
it goes you see whether you are in history class or watching your favorite history YouTuber there is a very peculiar way we are taught about revolutions revolutions are always portrayed as struggles between the commoners and the ruling establishment the people either become conscious of their situation and class or the establishment messes up and starts burdening the commoners more and then they rise up to fix the wrongs and bring prosperity to the average Joe the French Revolution is portrayed as a popular Uprising against Royal tyranny the German Revolutions of 1848 as a struggle for civil liberties
and the Russian Empire fell in 1917 when the working class and peasants could no longer tolerate oppression and reach the breaking Point basically you have two sides the rich establishment made up of Kings Aristocrats clergymen and businessmen who are always Allied and BFFs with each other and then the Common People the 99% Factory workers peasants and so forth the first side wants to suppress and squeeze the commoners as much as possible for their own benefit while the average people well just don't want to starve and be treated like Republicans living in San Francisco many people
don't realize this but this is an approach adopted for Marxist historiography in this view class struggle is seen as the driving force behind historical developments basically history is largely seen as a series of conflicts between different classes most notably the working class and the ruling class or the Bourgeois thus revolutions are pivotal moments when the oppressed classes rise up against their oppressors leading to significant social economic political changes as marks and Engles would write in The Communist Manifesto Freeman and slave Patrician and plean Lord and surf Guild Master and journeyman in a word oppressor and
oppressed stood in constant opposition to one another carried on an uninterrupted Now hidden now open fight a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes the history of all hither to existing Society is the history of class struggles and this is where monarchism comes in I have dedicated several videos on this channel explaining the benefits of a monarchal system and why I believe it is a superior form of governance over republicanism but there is one topic I never really addressed if
monarchies really are superior then why did the overwhelming majority of them fall why is the majority of Europe today made up of democratic republics why did monarchy start crumbling as the Age of Enlightenment and democracy rolled in why did these people rise up in so many countries wanting to tear it down if monarchies really are such beneficial forms of governance why does no one want to return a monarchy after they became a republic these are definitely valid points and they do make sense if monarchies are better than republics then why are so many countries republics
you rarely if at all hear about revolutions aiming to restore a monarchy but always revolutions aiming to dismantle monarchies this must mean that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system if people were constantly rising up and fighting against it in favor of democratic republics it just doesn't add up and I actually completely agree maybe republics are better it all makes sense it all makes sense if you view history and revolutions through this populist Marxist lens the reason why no one is able to properly debunk this thesis is because there isn't much to debunk it
makes sense again but the problem is that people still try to address it through this populist interpretation but what if we completely ditch marks and angles and start looking at this issue through another lens one that might actually make more sense than the previous one I don't believe that monarchies fell because they were such bad systems that people rose up to tear them down I believe there is another cold perent reason here one we could very easily notice if we change our interpretations of these events so let's see what we can truly dig up and
discover not just the truth about why monarchies fell but the entire notion of republicanism and its Origins let's see what we can find across all types of societies whether they are primitive or Advanced One Thing Remains consistent there are two classes of people there's a class that rules and a class that is ruled over now egalitarians try to bridge this Gap as best as possible by advocating for equality and having the masses have a voice in how their country is run with democracy but the question arises if societies always have a a ruling class and
the ruled class no matter whether they are Democratic or not can the people truly be Sovereign and this is where the Italian School of elitism comes in which is going to provide us this alternate lens I have talked about Italian elite theory before in one of my videos and if you're already familiar with their whole Quirk and way of looking at Power then you can skip to the next chapter where I will start applying it to our relevant topic but if you are unfamiliar with it or or heard about it for the first time then
buckle up in his work the ruling class which is pretty much the Bible of the school of thought gwn of mosa emphasized that it is always inevitable that a small minority of people will be able to effectively control and keep the majority population in line and because every society has this distinction between ruler and ruled the people can never truly be in charge quote in reality the Dominion of an organized minority obeying a single impulse over the unorganized majority is inevitable the power of any minority is irresistable as against each single individual in the majority
who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority 100 men acting uniformly in concert with a common understanding will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one meanwhile it will be easier for the former to act in conquer and have a mut ual understanding simply because they are a 100 and not a thousand it follows that the larger the political Community the smaller will the proportion of the governing minority to the Govern majority be and the more difficult will it be for the majority
to organized for reaction against the minority the collective masses simply do not have the instinctive organization necessary to accomplish Feats such as Revolution if everyone is running around doing their own thing then they can be easily dealt with even if the numbers are on their side another prominent figure in the theory Robert Michels would write about the same thing quote the most striking proof of the organic weakness of the mass is furnished by the way in which when deprived of the leaders in time of action they abandon the field of battle in disordered flight they
seem to have no power of instinctive reorganization and are useless until New captains arise capable of replacing those that have been lost so the solution then is for the people to have a leader that leads them towards Victory right problem solved and the very moment that happens Michelle's famous iron law of oligarchy comes into effect Michelle's law states that all forms of organization regardless of how Democratic they may be at the start will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic Tendencies especially in large groups and complex organizations he would write quote organization implies a tendency to oligarchy
in every organization whether it be a political party a professional Union or any other Association of any kind the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly as a result of organization every party or professional Union becomes divided into a minority of directors and the majority of directed who says organization says oligarchy there are Technical and tactical reasons why this happens large complex organizations as opposed to smaller and simpler ones tend to become more controlled by a few leaders matter of fact is most people don't have the time or interest to constantly participate in voting or decision
making and due to this you have to narrow down choices to a few main ones many prominent political parties have hundreds of thousands of members but are all of them active in decision making absolutely not and for that reason a specific number of active members is going to take charge of the party and if that is the case how can you claim that your movement represents the will of the people if it is led by the select and active view take communism as a prime example in its Doctrine it claims that a dictatorship of the
proletariat needs to emerge where the proletariat is elevated to the ruling class now what does it mean the proletariat race to a governing class will the entire proletariat had the government Factory workers number in the millions will all Millions be members of the government the entire nation will apparently rule but no one will be ruled but if that is the case then there will be no government there will be no state but if there is a state there will also be those who are ruled so from whatever point of view we look at this question
it always comes down to the same dismal result government of the vast majority of the people buy a privileged minority but I can hear the Marxist saying this government will consist of workers yes perhaps of former workers who as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers World from the heights of the state and not from below as an ordinary worker they will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretentions to govern them anyone who doubts this
is not at all familiar with human nature because of this the Democratic principle has to give way to the oligarchical principle for practical reasons but still these movements and organizations need countless bureaucratic tasks that must be managed to keep it all running groups aiming for power have to handle finances Administration and diplomacy it must also organize voting canvas supporters provide information to speakers raise funds and maintain its legal status but wait to keep this machine well oiled you must then have people who are more educated and are in higher positions than normal people so you
need Elite backing oh and here is the Crux of the Italian elite theory it doesn't view historical events as fights between Elites and the people but rather Elites and other Elites they are not natural allies but competitors aiming to take power and consolidate it Evolutions occur when the existing ruling class loses the capability and motivation to stay in power leading to widespread public discontent this then creates an opening for a counter Elite group to step in and take control rebellions happen revolutions are engineered and whether the counter Elite is actually fighting for the people or
just taking advantage of them is another story so how can we apply the alite theory and how can it help us understand the relevant topic while for one it completely redefines this struggle we always heard about the people versus aristocracy Monarch and clergy if we apply it here that means this Triple Alliance never truly existed but rather they were competing against one another and this is in fact true historically this Alliance was extremely rare numerous monarchs and Kings throughout history had conflicts with both the aristocracy and clergy French historian Mark BL in his work feudal
society made this extremely clear quote the Monarch's Authority was constantly checked by the Ambitions of the nobility and the church each seeking to assert its own autonomy and influence the notion of a harmonious alliance between these Powers is more of a reflection of idealized medieval Theory than of historical reality the actual relationships were marked by tension and conflict as each sought to expand its own power at the expense of the others Austrian polymath Eric Von lein who we will be hearing more of in the video also described it in his book Menace of the herd
quote we must not forget in that connection that the intimate alliance between monarchy aristocracy and clergy was unknown prior to the French Revolution only second rate historians would consider the Coalition between Throne alter and nobility a standard phenomenon these elements formed usually a triangle of opposing forces Kings and Emperors usually received support from the urban elements in their struggle against the powerful aristocratic oligarchs and in some religious Rebellion we see similarly a coalition between the first and Third Estate against the second let me give a recent example when talking about King Louis the 16th and
the French Revolution the common story is that Louie disregarded the Third Estate and let the first and second do with them as they pleased in the Estates General however historian John hodman in his book about about Louie completely challenges this narrative making the point that it was not uncommon for him to actually side with a Third Estate against the first two Estates one notable instance is that during a session there was a debate over whether the Estates should verify their credentials separately or together the first and second were against verifying it together because it would
favor the third state by giving them a stronger position against them and Louie actually sided with the Third Estate on this one frustrated Aristocrat would write in his Memoirs quote we never ceased repeating to the king that the Third Estate would wreck everything and we were right we begged him to restrain them to impose his Sovereign Authority on party Intrigue the king replied but it is not clear that the theor are wrong different forms have been followed each time the Estates have been held so why reject verification in common I am for it the king
it has to be admitted was then numbered among revolutionaries a strange fatality which can only be explained by detecting the hand of Providence now sure these three sides definitely competed with one another for power but they were all still in favor of a monarchy and they all generally had some benefit of their class by upkeeping the system so if the Italian elite theory is followed What kind of elite would benefit from breaking this status quo who would benefit from the the monarchy being overthrown it was in fact a certain class that was rapidly On The
Rise during this time I am talking about none other than the Bourgeois before the French Revolution there were numerous republics across Europe most notably you had those centered in Italy prominent republics like Venice Florence Genoa the interesting thing about them was that their ruling class was not made up of aristocrats or clergymen but rather merchants and bankers and from them many banking families and political dynasties emerged but what made them different from Aristocrats and Kings is that they governed not in accordance with a noble and divine duty but rather financially and what was good for
business in his book a history of Florence John na would describe how the government of Florence operated and I can bet that you will point at the screen and go here come oh here come Florence was in many respects the quintessential Mercantile Republic it was a city whose political life was dominated by merchants and bankers who used their economic resources to secure and maintain political power the ruling Elite compromising a handful of powerful families like the Michi albizzi and stroy did not merely participate in political life they controlled it these families turned political office into
to an instrument of their private economic interests using their control over the Republic's institutions to manipulate laws taxes and public resources to favor their businesses the great families were thus at the center of a political system that revolved around the preservation and augmentation of wealth which meant that the political structure of the Republic was inherently oligarchic despite its nominal Republican form political competition was less about ideology or public good and more about controlling the economic resources of the state that all sounds oddly identical to what we have today no in our modern world it's not
that easy to know how exactly corrupt and Shady of businesses you are buying from or an organization that you are working with but what if we came up with a way of measuring how corrupt an organization is using data and people using the results when making decisions this is where my state comes in the sponsor of today's video mytic utilizes an algorithm that estimates organization corruption levels using data and the concept is to use the algorithm to establish a worldwide incentive system that rewards organizations for implementing structural reforms against corruption on the website you can
identify which organizations are doing a good job and which ones are not something to keep in mind next time you are buying from a business or similar the algorithm has been used to analyze more than 8,000 organizations so far and the results have been published on the website more than 30,000 people all over the world are using the tool already and contributing themselves if you value transparency and the fight against corruption mystick is the ideal website for you if you believe this idea is worth striving for for mankind sake and you want to support it
or you simply feel curious about the results you can register for free at my. DK and I once again thank myti for sponsoring this video now where were we oh yeah needless to say I don't think it's hard to imagine that historically merchants and Aristocrats really did not get along well with each other they practically lived and experienced two different worlds and French historian fand broel would also take a note of this in one of his works on the early developments of capitalism quote merchants and Aristocrats lived in different worlds shaped by opposing values and
interests the aristocracy was entrenched in a social order that was static dependent on land honor and inherited privilege they viewed Merchants with suspicion as disruptive forces driven by profit and change who undermine traditional hierarchies and values merchants in turn saw the aristocracy as barriers to economic freedom and growth wielding power to protect their privileges and impose their will over commerce this Mutual distrust and hostility defined their relations for Centuries with Merchants often finding themselves on the defensive against aristocratic power struggling for autonomy within a system that was fundamentally geared to sustain aristocratic rule it was
inherently within their class interest to gear more towards a republican form of governance than a monarchical one keep in mind the way merchants and bankers exercised their power was through finance and money but the Monarch did not run a business that could go bankrupt his as well as the rule of his offsprings was codified in the law and he could not be bribed because he was already at the top of the hierarchy so what more could he seek because as it turns out your usual strategy of throwing money at the problem and coercing doesn't exactly
work with a monarch no matter how you see it from their point of view the mere presence of a figure at the top that is outside of their sphere of INF fluence is a big liability to their plans of gaining power they have to either restrict his powers to such an extent that he could never POS a threat or abolish the system as a whole and it just so happens that coincidentally revolutionary Republican movements and ideas sprung up during and after the Industrial Revolution where the Bourgeois started growing rapidly and accumulating more and more power
and influence h H my pattern recognition sense tingling and this rivalry between the two carried over well into the industrial revolution and if anything it further escalated it now that private corporations and businesses could produce tons of goods and commodities in a much faster way it led to the Bourgeois slowly but surely accumulating more wealth which they could use to wiggle their way into the power structure notable English historian Eric hops bombb with comment on this in his work on the age of revolutions emphasizing that they were becoming so powerful that they could have been
considered their own Army quote the effect of the Industrial Revolution on the structure of Bourgeois Society was superficially less drastic but in fact far more profound for it created new blocks of Bourgeois which coexisted with the official Society too large to be absorbed by it except by a little assimilation at the very top and too to self-confident and dynamic to wish for absorption except on their own terms the merchants bankers and even the industrialists of the 18th century had been few enough to be assimilated into official Society the new men from the provinces were a
formidable army all the more so as they became increasingly conscious of themselves as a class rather than a middle rank Bridging the Gap between the upper and lower orders moreover they were not merely a class but a class Army of combat organized at first in conjunction with the laboring poor against the aristocratic Society you see when the aristocracy Monarch and clergy fought over power it was more like a gentleman's chess game knowing to influence and secure the right people and cleverly outmaneuver their opponents with rhetoric connections and traps these were battles fought with an elite
society and because they were small in numbers they had to be much more careful and strategic if they wanted to win this Grand chess game but the Bourgeois on the other hand were not interested in engaging in these petty little games instead they came up with a new strategy one that would grant them Victory against their opponents but at the same time Chang the entire landscape of political power which would make sure their opponents could never properly challenge them ladies and gentlemen I am talking about none other than Mass politics there is a pretty good
reason why throughout the 19th century the ideal of democratic equality and capitalism worked so well with one another the aim was to crush the aristocracy and clergy with sheer numbers and Usher in a new playing field where now your legitimacy depends on the people and how much you appeal to them for the Bourgeois this was an ideal system because now now they could use their Mass wealth to organize campaigns channel the masses and unleash them on their enemies and the aristocracy and clergy would have an extremely difficult time adapting to this new playing field because
again they are more used to influencing and persuading individual people in certain positions not a massive wave of tens of thousands lein would very much WR about this quote money was certainly a means of the ocratic or mob rule middle classes to fight their Victorious battles against the first and second Estates and this is one of the reasons why democratism and capitalism had such a fine tradition of intimate cooperation in the past on account of the intellectual model caused by the forerunners of the epigones of the French Revolution we see capitalism infecting even a cloy
with its liberalistic conceptions mob rule in the 19th century was indeed sweet and persuasive and capitalism helped it to spread its ideology by advertising and propaganda the masses in their naive enthusiasm and optimism were still far from seeing the demoniacal qualities inherent in their majoritarianism or in the rule of the machines capitalism and democracy share the techniques of the art of persuasion they are both essentially anthropocentric in their pretentious going to the public as well as in their undignified megaphonic appeal to the heard as Lin said the Bourgeois mastered the art of persuasion and Catering
to large groups with the assistance of capitalism and as their power grew the influence of the other Estates started declining until they successfully pulled the rug under them and established themselves as the new ruling class Aristocrats lost their privileges as they depended on their inherited land and the clergy was decapitated with a separation of church and state and the Monarch either overthrown or his powers were limited to such an extent where he could no longer pose a threat to them Hobs bomb himself even admits this in the very first page of the introduction in its
Book quote this revolution has transformed and continues to transform the entire world the great revolution of 1789 to 1848 was the Triumph not of Industry as such but of capitalist industry not of Liberty and equality in general but of middle class or Bourgeois liberal Society not of the modern economy or the modern state but of the economies and states in a particular geographical region of the world whose Center was the neighboring and rival states of Great Britain and France the French Revolution is a major piece of evidence for this keep in mind the Revolution was
largely driven by the Ambitions and frustrations of the Bourgeois the urban middle class class which included Merchants lawyers and other professionals they were dissatisfied with their lack of political power and the restrictions on their activities under the old regime they saw the revolution as an opportunity to overthrow the Privileges of the nobility and to establish a society where their economic and social status would be more accurately reflected in political power it has almost nothing to do with the common people they were just their pawns French historian George lebra who was a Marxist by the way
would write extensively on the role of the Bourgeois in his book The Coming of the French Revolution quote the old regime threw indiscriminately into the Third Estate all commoners from the wealthiest BGE was to the poorest beggar or some 96% of the nation according to C's the Third Estate was a purely legal entity in which the only real elements were the social ones and of these the most important the one which led and mainly benefited from The Revolution was the Bourgeois the Bourgeois was intermixed with the rest of the population that is why it was
able to assume the leadership of the Revolution and that's the reality these revolutions and movements weren't spearheaded by the people seeking to end their oppression but a new emerging Elite Class seeking to entrench themselves and defeat their Rivals all the while UD izing public sentiment to legitimize their rule the true enemy of the monarchy has never been the people but other Elite groups seeking to strengthen their own power and influence over the country but despite all this I can still hear you saying sure Democratic republicanism may have been coming from the Bourgeois and was spearheaded
by them but they still brought us democracy the form of governance where we get to choose our own leaders and not having to fear about tyrants a system where the people are the judge jury and executioner right right now think about it like this if the whole point of introducing the system was for it to benefit them and entrench their rule why would they do something so stupid as to actually give people an actual say over their country if voting truly changed anything they would make it illegal so now this brings us to the last
part how exactly and specifically does a Democratic Republic benefit the ruling Elite when talking about republics you need to split the government into two parts the visible one which is the parliament prime minister or president and other public offices and then the invisible one which is made up of corporate lobbyists rich and influential families and other groups the invisible one is the true ruling class that influences the visible one and makes sure every everything goes smoothly what happens in other forms of government namely that an organized minority imposes its will on the disorganized majority as
per Italian elite theory happens also and to Perfection whatever the appearan is to the contrary under our representative systems when we say that we elect our Representatives I would say that instead they have themselves elected by their friends these friends tend to be rich individuals who can afford to fund politicians and to advance their specific agendas often at the expense of the broader Public's interests these figures often own newspapers and other media Outlets granting them the power to control the narrative and shape public opinion to their advantage this is extremely dangerous to our democracy this
is extremely dangerous to our democracy this is extremely dangerous to our democracy this is extremely dangerous to our democracy this is extremely dangerous to our and the campaigns are typically orchestrated by tight-knit groups that work to ensure that the election results align with their own goals as a result even though elections might appear Democratic the outcomes frequently reflect the wishes of these powerful minorities and since you are in the shadows out of the public eye and safe from scrutiny there is no incentive for you to act morally and righteously you can be as corrupt as
you want but as long as their eyes are on the president and everyone in Parliament who cares what they truly think monarchies by contrast never had this distinction the government so to say was always visible there is the king and his castle there are all the Nobles and the exact Estates they own and here are all the priests running churches and when they do some oopsy daisies you know exactly where to find them and how sensitive their next to Sharp blades are because as it turns out the people being able to confidently and correctly identify
who rules over them kind of gives you more of an incentive to watch out and do some good lest your head be separated from the rest of your body but in a Democratic Republic yeah right [ __ ] that who needs that stuff when you are puppeteering the guy everyone is getting mad at you have people think that the president or prime minister is actually in charge and when things start going bad they just have to throw him out of the mob as a sacrifice the people calm down new guy comes in and they start
influencing him are you starting to understand why they prefer republics letin would actually mention this exact thing quote a republic is an ideal form of government for an aristocracy and aristocracy that wants to rule directly instead of serving a ruler has to choose between a temporary monarchy like England or a republic like Venice Genoa or early Florence historically monarchy protected against oligarchical Rule and monarchs often sided with the lower classes against the nobility every strong and independent aristocracy tends to be Republican only a weakened degenerate or very wise aristocracy supports monarchy Patrick J Denine in
a seminal work why liberalism failed makes this exact observation as well instead of abolishing the old aristocracy in favor of a system managed by the people liberalism instead just created a new one that is less transparent and even more powerful quote liberalism was justified and gained popular support as the opponent of an alternative to the old aristocracy it attacked inherited privilege overturned prescribed economic roles and abolished fixed social positions arguing instead for openness based upon Choice Talent opportunity and Industry the irony is the creation of a new aristocracy that has enjoyed inherited privileges prescribed economic
roles and fixed social positions even as liberalism's Architects were forthright about their ambition to displace the old aristocracy they were not silent about their hopes of creating a new aristocracy liberalism success thus Fosters the conditions of its failure having claimed to bring about a downfall of aristocratic rule of the strong over the week it culminates in a new more powerful even more permanent aristocracy that fights ceaselessly to maintain the structures of liberal Injustice this obviously does not mean that everyone who runs for office is a puppet in fact I do believe that there are many
good people who base their campaigns on good goals and genuinely want to act on them and bring about change the issue here is that even when you win an election and come into office you are then going to be placed in this Grand chess game against the elites who obviously do not want to see you acting completely on your own people think that when you become a president or prime minister you can just start doing stuff right away when power is a lot more complicated than that especially in a republic you need to know how
to navigate that field and play your cards right to gain the upper hand against many interest groups who stand in opposition to you when you vote for someone in an election all you do is throw them in the ring against the leads and hope they will win and if they don't well they will not be able to achieve MCH and this is a fight out of the Public's hands now it just comes down to how well the candidat is going to play their cards true change can only come when you have firm hands on both
governments so Ironically in the end it is a game of chance something many Republicans criticize monarchy for so now we come to the Grand question if we keep all of this in mind how is a republic inherently better than a monarch monarchy wasn't the whole point the one major principle that in a republic the officials chosen by the people wield the power instead of a hereditary family with no public say and the sad part is people still believe this they are still fooled by the fact that they actually wield Powers Through The Ballot Box fighting
over which one of the two corporate puppet candidates is better and never thinking about questioning democracy and republicanism the sacred C house that may never be put to the blade and anyone who questions these systems is a person who wants to establish brutal tyrannies with no freedom and liberty monarchies weren't overthrown by the people seeking Liberation and realizing that the system is bad and tyrannical but rather they were headed by the merchant and later Bourgeois classes seeking to dominate the power structure and the way they maintain their influence and power is by giving the illusion
of choice voice so that the people may never dare question it because let's be real on a surface level who would trade a system where they have a say in how their country should be run for a system where power is in the hands of a family and people who get it just by the privilege of being born in that position in reality monarchs often stood as Defenders of the common people against the Ambitions of powerful oligarchies they held a sense of responsibility Guided by a belief in in Divine Duty that guided them to protect
the broader interests of their subjects today with monarchies largely gone who stands to Shield the common folk from the self suring Ambitions of the few what we have today is exactly that which dominated Florence and other republics only difference is that now we just have the illusion that we are the ones in charge it is absolute childish nonsense to say that we have a government of the People by the people for the people it has nothing to do with the people we went from a ruling class that saw itself as having a Divine duty to
care for their subjects and having more of an incentive for doing so to one that is hiding in the shadows seeing humans as walking dollar signs customers who exist only to consume a financial government ruling by the decree of money and money alone so now I ask you is this what you [Music] desire for [Music] [Music] [Laughter] [Music] [Laughter] seal minus hand [Music]
