Terror!

[bailey_187]

Here is a documentary i have been trying to find for ages: Terror! Robespiere and the French Revolution

It, from what i have seen so far, is pretty much a debate between Simon Schama, a liberal historian and Slavoj Zizek. Schama condemns all political violence and Robespiere, while Zizek defends it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8kHUMXQJtk

Its not often you hear arguments for "revolutionary violence" on the BBC

[Pretty Flaco]

That certainly was interesting. And rather suiting for your avatar. :lol:

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

[QUOTE=bailey_187;1936996] Schama condemns all political violence and Robespiere, while Zizek defends it.

More precisely, Schama condemns all political violence so long as he can make the assumption that political violence comes from the Left - is "innate" to the Left; it's something Zizek doesn't contradict.

Interesting that the clip shows Lazare Carnot as a member of the Committee for Public Safety. Carnot was among the many BOURGEOIS instruments of the Terror who survived Thermidor. In fact, Carnot was responsible for crushing the conspiracy of Gracchus Babeuf, the founder of the first communist party worthy of that name.

[Kléber]

Its not often you hear arguments for "revolutionary violence" on the BBC
But when you do hear them on bourgeois television, they are mocked, taken out of context, and some counter-revolutionary historical-revisionist asswipe like Schama is given twice as much time to put them on blast and cry about what an "imbecile" he thinks Saint-Just was. Žižek didn't even do a good job of defending the revolution - not that they would have shown the best parts of his argument of course.


Interesting that the clip shows Lazare Carnot as a member of the Committee for Public Safety. Carnot was among the many BOURGEOIS instruments of the Terror who survived Thermidor. In fact, Carnot was responsible for crushing the conspiracy of Gracchus Babeuf, the founder of the first communist party worthy of that name.The Committee of Public Safety was always bourgeois; the fact that it initially enjoyed proletarian support and some sans-culotte leaders joined it does not make it less bourgeois than the Second Spanish Republic. The turn against the proletariat occurred prior to Thermidor, in the purge of the Hébertists. Like Collot d'Herbois, Carnot is depicted in this video as an example of revolutionary politicians who initially supported the Terror, then turned against it.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Or, you could say it was bourgeois because its promises to the people were purely formal.The Constitution of the Year One is a terrific document that was immediately suspended and never implemented.

Interesting, also, that the BBC program features Andress without really taking on his own argument, which is that the Terror was merely the product of excessive bureaucratic infighting. Of course if you follow Max Weber that would suggest that the Terror is the product of a capitalist administrative system, like King Leopold's Congo...

[ed miliband]

The sarcastic narrator can fuck right off.

[mossy noonmann]

what they miss, probably intentionally is that in 1789 nearly no one was calling for the head of the king .

these actions were a process, something dynamic, something that moves and is moved by the times they lived in. this is something schama could never understand, for him history is something you read about, or talk bollocks in books or tv shows.

he doesn't understand that the only reason he can get paid for talking bollocks is that people didn't agree with his, i was going to say ideas but i don't think an original idea has ever crossed his mind, way of thinking.

its funny that this was posted recently because i've been reading some other stuffabout the same thing. i try to find it and post alink

just read that back semmed a but pompous but i'l stand by it

cheers for the link bailey:thumbup1:

[deadmeat1471]

Great link! Robespierre is an interesting character.

[Aurora]

Does anyone know a good book on the French Revolution? preferably by a marxist, my knowledge on the subject is sorely laking

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Does anyone know a good book on the French Revolution? preferably by a marxist, my knowledge on the subject is sorely laking
Hands down, Jules Michelet's History of the French Revolution, transl. from the French, and written in the mid-nineteenth century. Michelet was no Marxist, but he was very sympathetic. Beautifully written, really a literary monument. Ends with the fall of Robespierre, though.

[bailey_187]

Does anyone know a good book on the French Revolution? preferably by a marxist, my knowledge on the subject is sorely laking

Mark Steel's book is good and enjoyable to read. You wont get the most indepth view, but a good introduction you will enjoy reading, unlike most history books that are boring read from cover to cover

[Os Cangaceiros]

Robespierre is an interesting character.

I agree...I've always been interested in the "true believer" archtype in regards to historical figures.


Does anyone know a good book on the French Revolution? preferably by a marxist, my knowledge on the subject is sorely laking

You might want to look at The Great French Revolution by Peter Kropotkin. It actually has a fairly decent reputation as a historical work, despite being written many years ago. Supposedly Pol Pot was influenced by it (or so scarletghoul tells me).

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

While we're on the topic of major political figures of the XIXth c. who wrote about the French Revolution, there's a history of the FR by Jean Jaurès "Histoire Socialiste de la Revolution française." The issue that concerned Jaurès was the question whether the State was, or was not "an organ of domination of a definite class." Particularly relevant question when asking about Robespierre...