"But," says Sainte Beuve, "he reproached him (Proudhon) with having adopted dangerous theories, and with having touched upon questions of practical politics and social organization, where upright intentions and zeal for the public welfare cannot justify rash solutions."
"The French societies... were absorbed into the tradition of state intervention, employers paternalism and political maneuvering." - Theodore Zeldin - 'Politics and Anger' - France-1848-1945.
==========
Germany - Lutheranism and the reformation.
Although at the time Lutheranism was seen as radical and a 'dangerous' idea, it was not long before the new Protestantism was in alliance with some of the the old elite and actively used as a new method of controlling the unruly masses. Later on the Catholics, realising that their power was in decline, responded to this power-takeover by starting their own 'super-priest' production line (The Jesuits). Interesting though that Christianity (and religion in general) can still be a 'dangerous' idea if they refuse to be bribed by the government of the day. Liberation theology was (and still is) seen as a threat to power, but ultimately runs the risk of creating a new (or is that old?) elite - the clergy, and carried to its ultimate conclusion - some form of theocracy.
Later, the enlightenment thinkers took over (to a large extent) from the privileged position of the clergy - in a way this was a power-struggle over ideas. "If opinion is Queen of the World, the philosophers govern that Queen." [Voltaire] We can't assume that the enlightenment philosophers had purely altruistic motives - in fact, once accepted they became in many ways a new priesthood, were often associated with the political elite and became a source (or justification) of elite political power - they were to a large extent integrated into the elitist hierarchy (e.g. Voltaire was a friend and advisor to Fredrick II of Prussia). Today the enlightenment project and its political offshoots are frequently called into question and even seen as irrelevant by postmodernists. Yet what are these new (post-modern) philosophers [e.g Faucault et al] but yet another elite espousing 'dangerous ideas' which have already been integrated into the status-quo?
LIBERTY EGALITE FRATERNITY - great ideals cheapened by bourgeoise vanguardists.
Various attempts were made in France to realise these ideals, although in reality it was mostly an attempt by the middle-classes to make a grab for power. Whether this was even 'progress' could be debated, as it in the end led to a new set of rulers; yet some gains were made for the lower classes - they graduated from 'serf' to citizen! Yet probably its most important legacy was that people began to realise that they could think and act for themselves and overthrow power in an 'organised' fashion.
Perhaps a further understanding of Liberty and Revolution was at the time of greatest crisis (The Paris Commune 1871) Interestingly the other most often cited example of realising the ideals of Liberty- Equality - Fraternity - were evident in Spain 1936 (another crisis period). This suggests that perhaps the ideals of the French Revolution can be only realised sporadically and at times of great upheaval.[1] 'Liberty' flares up like a new star and then fades out or explodes in a supernova. The Paris Commune was the biggest 'supernova' explosion but there were many simultaneous lesser 'liberations' of surrounding cities in France which exploded in solidarity. Here in Australia we had our own (mini) 'Paris Commune' (the Eureka Rebellion 1854) - this too ended in a mostly bourgeoise political system which is still evident today. But the results and demands of the Eureka rebellion reflected the political ideas of that period (chartists, republicans, a few socialists and early anarchists). From that perspective it was to a degree a success. Today the Eureka Flag is often recognised only as a symbol of a trade-unionism which poses no real threat to the establishment. Yet the rebellion itself was an example of what DIRECT ACTION, DIRECT DEMOCRACY and SOLIDARITY can do in the face of imperialist domination.
DANGEROUS THINKERS - the 'new priesthood'
- Enlightenment thinkers and their political offshoots - France 1848 - 1945)
Socialist and radical republican ideas were absorbed into the State as much as possible and were systematically neutralised of their 'radicalism'. (e.g. Proudhon's 'mutualism' became part of the system of the new ruling class.) This reformism is not necessarily bad - it falls short of the full ideal but can result in positive change. But usually it is not long before every ounce of 'radicalism' is squeezed out of the 'dangerous' idea and it becomes a full-blown instrument of state or private control.
- Modern-day.
'Dangerous' ideas become the new conservatism when they are co-opted by capitalism. The consumerisation of rebellion is a $multi-billion market.(e.g. Punk, Hip-Hop, fashion industry, etc) Although the idea might in itself still be 'dangerous' it is 'assimilated' and mass-marketed - sometimes by organised crime. ('designer' drugs). Most attempts to subvert power have ended up being co-opted by power itself. Is it then inevitable that the idea of 'progress' and every new development of science or philosophy will be co-opted? No. There is something which is immune and has always been feared by the ruling class. This 'something' has always co-existed side-by-side with the dominant paradigm in an almost symbiotic relationship. It is like the younger sibling, or the small plant growing in the shade of the bigger tree. At times it has almost withered completely - yet something of it has remained to this day. This something is generally called 'Anarchism'. Which political philosophy has NEVER been integrated into the 'status quo'? ANARCHISM. What is constantly misrepresented and portrayed as the great 'threat' to society? ANARCHISM. What is still in its infancy as a political theory yet ANCIENT in its human tendency? ANARCHISM. Yes, Alexander Berkman was right when he said: "Anarchism is the finest and biggest thing man has ever thought of...
Berkmans observation still holds for today. Unlike authoritarian 'socialism', anarchism has NEVER been used by the elite and FOR the elite (to any extent). Why is this? Because it can't be assimilated! It is a tendency in humanity for freedom. For the anarchist tendency in humanity to become a conscious THOUGHT, THEORY and PRACTICE amongst the general public would mean the negation of power! An-archy! No Rulers! "It is impossible!" say the experts. "It is disorder... Chaos... Evil!!!" The ruling elite understand too well that the ACCEPTANCE of anarchist ideas into the mainstream is STILL THE BIGGEST THREAT to their position - - the bureaucrats, the technocrats and the Parties who have for so long enjoyed their privileged position would be out of a job! Their whole 'reason d'etre' would cease to exist!
[1] "In fact, if there is any continuity in history, it is a continuity in heteronomy interrupted by usually sudden and temporary leaps into 'autonomous' forms of organisation. Thus, an autonomous form of political organisation (direct democracy) has always been the rare exception and even rarer have been the cases of autonomous forms of economic and social organisation (economic democracy and �democracy in the social realm�)." [inclusivedemocracy.org]