[001]
JulianLapostat
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Historically, benign foreign policy measures, i.e. non-interventionism, anti-expansionism (but not anti-war) tend to fall under conservatism, obviously the old landholders don't want to share property, so the only way for the ambitious to gain land is new territory and conquests. UsefulNotes/JuliusCaesar was a populare, i.e. on the left wing of UsefulNotes/TheRomanRepublic and his foreign conquests of Gaul was opposed by the Boni (i.e. aristocratic right-wing senate who refused any and all proposals of reforms and clamped down on dissent). The Boni massacred and defeated the Gracchi, populares (and descendants of Scipio Africanus) whose platform was mostly the fact that the poor soldiers and conscripts who won glory in Rome got nothing and they, Gaius Gracchus especially, distributed wealth among the poor by means of colonies in conquered territories and new settlements. In the age of colonialism and imperialism, the Whig Party of England were far more gung-ho into imperialism and British expansionism than the Tories. And in America, the American age of expansion of settlements West was taken by Andrew Jackson's party that arose in a populist common man appeal. In France, the liberal centrists under Tocqueville, Jules Ferry and others (republican, anti-monarchist, anticlericists) were very much into
to:
Historically, benign foreign policy measures, i.e. non-interventionism, anti-expansionism (but not anti-war) tend to fall under conservatism, obviously the old landholders don\'t want to share property, so the only way for the ambitious to gain land is new territory and conquests. UsefulNotes/JuliusCaesar was a populare, i.e. on the left wing of UsefulNotes/TheRomanRepublic and his foreign conquests of Gaul was opposed by the Boni (i.e. aristocratic right-wing senate who refused any and all proposals of reforms and clamped down on dissent). The Boni massacred and defeated the Gracchi, populares (and descendants of Scipio Africanus) whose platform was mostly the fact that the poor soldiers and conscripts who won glory in Rome got nothing and they, Gaius Gracchus especially, distributed wealth among the poor by means of colonies in conquered territories and new settlements. In the age of colonialism and imperialism, the Whig Party of England were far more gung-ho into imperialism and British expansionism than the Tories. And in America, the American age of expansion of settlements West was taken by Andrew Jackson\'s party that arose in a populist common man appeal. In France, the liberal centrists under Tocqueville, Jules Ferry and others (republican, anti-monarchist, anticlericists) were very much into \"mission civilatrice\" in Algeria and elsewhere and Creator/AlbertCamus was quite defensive about the pied-noirs and generally not on board with the decolonization train as Sartre and Beauvoir. In England, John Stuart Mill, a great liberal, defended the East India Company\'s actions during 1857 and the imperial enterprise.
As far as left-wing anti-expansionism goes, Robespierre and Marat were probably the first to identify and oppose war as a distraction for revolution and critiqued any righteous justification for conquest. The 1792 War (without which you would have no Terror and Napoleon) was proposed by Girondins (and backed by the King and Queen) who were \'\'republican\'\' populists and was backed in the name of \"spreading the revolution\", and this war of expansionism was supported by the likes of Creator/ThomasPaine ([[NotSoAboveItAll who also wrote pamphlets to \"hypothetically\" invade America for Napoleon back when he was a citoyen-general, in the hopes to bring Revolution to America]]). The Jacobins were largely opposed to world revolution. Rosa Luxembourg and Vladimir Lenin in their opposition to UsefulNotes/WorldWarI invoked the Girondin-Jacobin debate as a reference point in the anti-war movement, seeing it as a distraction to revolution, but at the same time both of them despite differences were for world revolution. In England, Marx was an anti-imperialist and anti-expansionist, and later Charles Bradlaugh, a real radical was the first to propose and defend Indian independence in parliament. In America, the Radical Republicans opposed the MexicanAmericanWar futilely, and further expansionism...and Franklin D. Roosevelt offered support for decolonization.
So I would say that foreign policy has historically cut across ideology, and has always been intricately connected to domestic policies.
As far as left-wing anti-expansionism goes, Robespierre and Marat were probably the first to identify and oppose war as a distraction for revolution and critiqued any righteous justification for conquest. The 1792 War (without which you would have no Terror and Napoleon) was proposed by Girondins (and backed by the King and Queen) who were \'\'republican\'\' populists and was backed in the name of \"spreading the revolution\", and this war of expansionism was supported by the likes of Creator/ThomasPaine ([[NotSoAboveItAll who also wrote pamphlets to \"hypothetically\" invade America for Napoleon back when he was a citoyen-general, in the hopes to bring Revolution to America]]). The Jacobins were largely opposed to world revolution. Rosa Luxembourg and Vladimir Lenin in their opposition to UsefulNotes/WorldWarI invoked the Girondin-Jacobin debate as a reference point in the anti-war movement, seeing it as a distraction to revolution, but at the same time both of them despite differences were for world revolution. In England, Marx was an anti-imperialist and anti-expansionist, and later Charles Bradlaugh, a real radical was the first to propose and defend Indian independence in parliament. In America, the Radical Republicans opposed the MexicanAmericanWar futilely, and further expansionism...and Franklin D. Roosevelt offered support for decolonization.
So I would say that foreign policy has historically cut across ideology, and has always been intricately connected to domestic policies.
