Napoleon

[ColonelCossack]

He's often portrayed as a Tyrant, or at least, more of a tyrant than the leaders of other countries, but how much worse was he than leaders of other major powers at the time (e.g. Britain or Russia), If there was even much of a difference at all?

[Ocean Seal]

He's often portrayed as a Tyrant, or at least, more of a tyrant than the leaders of other countries, but how much worse was he than leaders of other major powers at the time (e.g. Britain or Russia), If there was even much of a difference at all?
No there wasn't much of a difference. It's another example of reactionary exceptionalism. Capitalists are so afraid of revolution, that they will to go the extent that they generally endorse the reactionary side of the debate even when the revolutionary side was capitalist. Napoleon was a French nationalist, opportunist, and in general betrayed the liberal principles of the revolution, but the czars were far more barbaric and reactionary, and neither the British or the Prussians were angels.

[Astarte]

At least Napoleon was historically progressive in that he eliminated feudalism in much of Europe.

[Kitty_Paine]

At least Napoleon was historically progressive in that he eliminated feudalism in much of Europe.

Maybe, but he still betrayed those who follwed him in the revolution and everything it stood for then declared himself emperor... so he's a fucking prick, end of story. :thumbdown:

[La Comédie Noire]

Napoleon was a plunderer who killed thousands over his military adventures. However, his contemporaries were no angels either.



At least Napoleon was historically progressive in that he eliminated feudalism in much of Europe.

True, but a lot of this progress was reversed at the Vienna Congress.

[ColonelCossack]

As I thought.

[Rafiq]

He was a reactionary, in a certain sense.

[Agathor]

True, but a lot of this progress was reversed at the Vienna Congress.

The impression I got was that very little was reversed, at least within Western Europe. At the least, Napoleon forced the aristocracies of Europe to accept that things would have to change.

[Prometeo liberado]

He's often portrayed as a Tyrant, or at least, more of a tyrant than the leaders of other countries, but how much worse was he than leaders of other major powers at the time (e.g. Britain or Russia), If there was even much of a difference at all?

I have to say that this has been on my mind for years. Why Napoleon gets the bad rap vs. most other tyrants or other French tyrants, is beyond me. Yes there was the betrayal of the revolution, but its the conservatives who mostly, not solely, give him the most flogging. As far as tyrants go you could do much worse. And how 'bout those Napoleonic Laws, how they workin' out for ya.

[B0LSHEVIK]

A complicated question! I dont really feel that Napoleon defended the revolution, literally at least. As a young man, he took orders. He suppressed reactionary forces and stopped Frances enemies at the gates to the country with the french 18th century version of 'blitzkrieg.' Lets give credit where credit is due. Napoleon, like it or not, helped spread the ideals of the revolution. By conquest, people across Europe discovered that god would not strike all opposed to the divine right of the king down. The ideals of the French revolution marched with the soldiers of his campaigns, so yes, the revolution spread.

He, did however, prove to be the ultimate betrayer and thermidor of the revolution and its ideals, himself. The revolution called for an end to kings, yet he became emperor. He tore the 'rights of man' up (like the previous regimes did) but he did introduce France (and Europe) the idea of secular civil code. He reinslaved Haiti (after it had been freed in 1791) and ultimately, destroyed the revolution.:crying:

But I just like him too much to hate! Afterall, he struck fear in the hearts of the centuries old monarchies of Europe. If we only we had a man like Napoleon today...

[Die Neue Zeit]

If France had to go down the strongman route, there were better options and better policies. Gramsci was just wrong to include Napoleon in the company of Julius Caesar, to distinguish against Bismarck and Louis Bonaparte.

The radicalization of the French Revolution went to the point where the sans culottes demanded the restriction of "universal" suffrage to just those of the sans culottes (and thus a reinterpretation of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen away from qualifying just property owners). This preceded the Bolshevik disenfranchisement of capitalists, middlemen traders, priests, etc. This also probably went to the point where the peasantry called for the abolition of private property in land.

It was not outside the realm of possibility that France could have had a socially radical, and politically revolutionary, people's elected, non-hereditary, de facto monarchy ("monarchy" in the non-hereditary Greek sense). This strong figure could have come from a sans culottes social background and, like Napoleon, from a military career background. This strong figure could also have had someone just like Fouche for heading internal security. This strong figure could also have inaugurated something like the Napoleonic Code.

However, pro-peasant dealings with secular landlords and the Church could have gone the route of Vlad the Impaler, redirecting the Reign of Terror. The National Assembly could have been given more prominence because of sans culottes radicalism.

In terms of foreign affairs, Fraternite could have been taken more seriously, as anti-feudal ideals spread across the Continent in spite of British opposition. Germany, Italy, etc. could have become unified much sooner, and each a constitutional republic at that. Haiti could have been left alone.

[Bronco]

Militarily he was something of a strategic genius, see France's victories at Jena-Auerstadt and Ulm, and particularly Austerlitz, but politically he was definitely a reactionary and not much of a progressive figure, that's not to say he was any worse than Tsar Alexander though

[Sasha]

Useless bit of knowledge of the day; did you know it is illegal to name a pig Napoleon in France?

[Olentzero]

George Orwell's in trouble, then.

[Sasha]

Yup, hence why the pig is called differently in the french translation. Altough they apparently took more offence at the napoleon - Stalin comparison than the napoleon - pig one.

[piet11111]

It was not outside the realm of possibility that France could have had a socially radical, and politically revolutionary, people's elected, non-hereditary, de facto monarchy ("monarchy" in the non-hereditary Greek sense).

Like the roman princeps ?

I much prefer a workers democracy where absolute power is shared by many representatives instead of 1 absolute ruler.
Any concentration of power needs to be avoided as the potential of abuse is much too high. (OHSAS (Occupational Health & Safety Advisory Services) defines risk as the product of the probability of a hazard resulting in an adverse event, times the severity of the event.and with the severity of ending workers democracy being just short of nuclear war the risks are much much too high)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Like the roman princeps?

Not at all. That was an Imperial institution, not a Republican one. I personally had more in mind the dictator perpetuo, which in fact (and noted by Michael Parenti) was akin more to a term-unlimited presidency than to some despot or tyrant.


I much prefer a workers democracy where absolute power is shared by many representatives instead of 1 absolute ruler.
Any concentration of power needs to be avoided as the potential of abuse is much too high. (OHSAS (Occupational Health & Safety Advisory Services) defines risk as the product of the probability of a hazard resulting in an adverse event, times the severity of the event.and with the severity of ending workers democracy being just short of nuclear war the risks are much much too high)

The French "working classes" weren't really much of a defined social group in 1789 France, and didn't have the numbers to qualify as a potential democratic "ruling class."

[piet11111]

Not at all. That was an Imperial institution, not a Republican one. I personally had more in mind the dictator perpetuo, which in fact (and noted by Michael Parenti) was akin more to a term-unlimited presidency than to some despot or tyrant.

That is an awful lot of power to put in the hands of 1 person and open to abuse.

What would you propose to prevent it from degenerating into a stalin like dictatorship (a clique of powerful bureaucrats headed by a strongman).

[manic expression]

Political judgments aside, it is pretty baffling how much he accomplished. The man ended both the Republic of Venice and the Knights of Malta (the world's last crusader state), arguably inaugurated the beginning of the modern middle east, helped start Egyptology itself, innovated all sorts of military tactics (completely new role of artillery), helped make Latin America independent (!), contributed to the foundation of Italian and German nationalism, created one of the most important law codes in the world...I mean it's truly incredible what he did.

But I agree with other posters...he was certainly progressive in his campaigns against the old order of Europe, but his rolling back of the Revolution's accomplishments (emancipation, etc.) remains unforgivable. I also think he was basically addicted to conquest. Still, the Revolution had already ended its radical phase in 1794, we can't squarely blame Napoleon for that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That is an awful lot of power to put in the hands of 1 person and open to abuse.

You haven't read my stuff yet on socialist strategy in much of the Third World today (not just historical discussions), have you? ;)


What would you propose to prevent it from degenerating into a stalin like dictatorship (a clique of powerful bureaucrats headed by a strongman).

Like I said, "if France had to go down the strongman route." Not every strongman is a dictator, and not every dictator is a tyrant, but the Reign of Terror and beyond showed society's requirement for more central authority.

[piet11111]

You haven't read my stuff yet on socialist strategy in much of the Third World today (not just historical discussions), have you? ;)

Nope and even if i did i doubt i would retain much i have memory issues since i used paroxetine.
But if you would post a link i would definitely read it.



Like I said, "if France had to go down the strongman route." Not every strongman is a dictator, and not every dictator is a tyrant, but the Reign of Terror and beyond showed society's requirement for more central authority.

True i suppose Lenin would come to mind as a benevolent strongman but if we assume that the strongman position is extremely open to abuse we can temper that with democratic restraints.
Similar to how Obama still needs to pass laws through congress even if he would at this point much rather be able to rule by decree.
I can see some benefit to having someone in a position where he/she can rule by decree like with a disaster where having to deal with bureaucratic redtape will be an intolerable delay.
But to institutionalize such power in a permanent way is a bad idea.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nope and even if i did i doubt i would retain much i have memory issues since i used paroxetine.
But if you would post a link i would definitely read it.

Funny, I posted it in your Visitor Messages a couple of months ago, and it's still on top of the pecking order. :D

Check that out.


True i suppose Lenin would come to mind as a benevolent strongman but if we assume that the strongman position is extremely open to abuse we can temper that with democratic restraints.

I'm not sure. Lenin operated within the principles of collective leadership, and Sovnarkom wasn't as powerful as China's Central People's Government of 1949-1954 or Cuba's Council of Ministers from 1959 to 1976 (in terms of not having even formal accountability to any legislature):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-provisional-government-t163083/index.html


Similar to how Obama still needs to pass laws through congress even if he would at this point much rather be able to rule by decree.
I can see some benefit to having someone in a position where he/she can rule by decree like with a disaster where having to deal with bureaucratic redtape will be an intolerable delay.
But to institutionalize such power in a permanent way is a bad idea.

Check out this thread in the meantime, too:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-presidential-systems-t166053/index.html

[piet11111]

I read the material you linked to and the links in my visitor messages.

I think i see now what you are going for but its still seems to me as a top-down bureaucratic mess.
(though your writing style is very hard for me to decipher with lots of jargon and linking to previous posts that make for poor readability so i could have misread you)

And i respect your attempts to make on paper a democratic system that in the case of proletarian minority will still build towards socialism but looking at the USSR China and currently Nepal i have little hope that such a bureaucracy that incorporates the petit national bourgeois will lead to anything but the open restoration of capitalism.

You seem fond of Chavez but his top down system is clearly being compromised by corrupt party officials and so far he is unable to remove them and i believe your system has a similar weakness.

If Venezuela had a bottom up system in place then the workers would have had the means to rid themselves of these saboteurs long ago.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I read the material you linked to and the links in my visitor messages.

I think i see now what you are going for but its still seems to me as a top-down bureaucratic mess.

To clarify, the strong chief executive position lost much of its relevance, beyond peasant-based personality cults, when political parties and even mere electoral machines became more developed. In the time of Napoleon, they weren't developed enough to curtail any potential strong chief executive's powers to the point of dangling the figure as a (charismatic) figurehead for a party bureaucracy outside the official government.


(though your writing style is very hard for me to decipher with lots of jargon and linking to previous posts that make for poor readability so i could have misread you)

There were only References at the end in my People's Histories paper (it is a paper that has to cite, you know). My summary post in Mission Impossible only linked to the People's Histories paper at the very end. :confused: :blushing:


And i respect your attempts to make on paper a democratic system that in the case of proletarian minority will still build towards socialism but looking at the USSR China and currently Nepal i have little hope that such a bureaucracy that incorporates the petit national bourgeois will lead to anything but the open restoration of capitalism.

At least we're getting somewhere. My main point was what proletarian demographic minorities should do reasonably, beyond Trotskyist lunacy and Maoist class collaboration.


You seem fond of Chavez but his top down system is clearly being compromised by corrupt party officials and so far he is unable to remove them and i believe your system has a similar weakness.

Look at this gallery and check out the comments in each picture ( :D ):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/album.php?albumid=845

Chavez doesn't have enough formal presidential power, and the PSUV bureaucracy outside the government (most notably the PSUV's own executive committee) isn't strong enough.

How exactly is it a weakness for the National/Pan-National Leader to be fully recallable at the whims of a party bureaucracy outside government, perhaps even topped by some "politburo"?

Everywhere, even in the West, outside-the-government bureaucracies of political parties or even mere electoral machines are lamentably weak.


If Venezuela had a bottom up system in place then the workers would have had the means to rid themselves of these saboteurs long ago.

In Venezuela's case, as I said in classical Greek terms, there is simultaneous need for both democracy and (elected, non-hereditary, de facto) monarchy.