Taine denied social goals could explain revolutionary crowd violence

Evidence

Taine does not give us a picture of a clash between social forces whose aims are clearly stated and whose incompatibility would be the source of the ensuing violence. Social aims are certainly present in his description – ‘the limited revolt of necessity’ – but they are powerless to explain social action. They are overcome by an ‘unlimited violence’ resulting only from the action of ‘vagabonds’, ‘ruffians’ and ‘brigands’ – that is, by forces which escape every kind of social rationality. — Ernesto Laclau, On Populist Reason, 96

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Revolutionary violence must be contextualized rather than used to dismiss its ideals

Broader Connections

• Revolutionary violence must be contextualized rather than used to dismiss its ideals #contradicts (0.85)