Results for “Dan Edelstein”

I think there was a moment around 2009 to 2011 when states got caught off guard a little. They didn't realise social media had the potential it did. And then I think it didn't take very long for authoritarian regimes to get smart and realise they could actually use these tools to stay in power.

In my book, the reason I call figures like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., red leviathans is that they're actually serving a role that's necessary in a modern progressive revolution: they're the ones who say what is revolutionary and what isn't. Because it turns out that's not an easy question to answer.

The moment that really stuck with me was during the Egyptian revolution of 2011. Before Mubarak steps down, he turned the internet off for five days. And that was kind of a moment where it was like, wow—actually, in this hyper-technological world we live in, states can control it in ways they couldn't control printing presses or other forms of written technology as easily.

I think it was recognising that revolution was, in a way, the original problem of political thought. But in fact, constitutionalism is a Greek answer to the problem of revolution. You want to avoid revolution? Then you need to design a constitution in a certain way—so that it's balanced and less likely to be overturned by revolution.

I think what's hard for us to appreciate today is that, for thousands of years of human history—let alone pre-history—there was never this sense, so common to us now, of a future likely to be radically different from the present. But that's a very recent development in human thought that really only dates back, as I argue in the book, to the 18th century.

There was really a sense that humanity had already reached its peak, and so the question wasn't what comes next that's better, but rather how to prevent decline and loss. If you had a good state—or even just an okay one—your main concern was to keep it, to stop it from falling apart. Because there wasn't anything better you could reasonably expect.

The French Revolution really is this incredible hinge in the story of Western political thought. For a long time, it was just taken for granted that the French Revolution was the starting point of political modernity.

In the 18th century, they're kind of taking stock of how, in just about 100 years, all this classical learning had been overturned. Looking back on everything that's happened, they construct this narrative of how human reason has progressed.

Revolution was, in a way, the original problem of political thought. Constitutionalism is a Greek answer to the problem of revolution. You want to avoid revolution? Then you need to design a constitution in a certain way—so that it's balanced and less likely to be overturned by revolution.

For thousands of years of human history—let alone pre-history—there was never this sense, so common to us now, of a future likely to be radically different from the present. There was really a sense that humanity had already reached its peak, and so the question wasn't what comes next that's better, but rather how to prevent decline and loss.