The French Revolution

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

http://endtimepilgrim.org/bastille.jpg

What do you think about the French Revolution? Can you compare it to Marxism and can you compare the age of the Committee of Public Safety with Marxism-Leninism (which is not an insult to Marxist-Leninists because I myself am also a Marxist-Leninist)?

I believe that the French Revolution was (obviously) something orgainzied by the bourgeoisie, for the (new and rising) class of the bourgeoisie, with only simple promises made to the sans-culottes, proletariat, and peasants. This Revolution was, of course, a Revolution that was necessary for the overthrow of abosolutist monarchy and the relics of feudalism. This Revolution was set to establish a new mode of production called capitalism. The French Revolutionary bourgeoisie thought that if they got rid of the privileges of the two upper Estates (the clergy and the noblity), they would establish a just society with all privileges based on labor-attained wealth. Their thinking turned out to be wrong.

The French bourgeoisie were at the center of the Revolution because the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie was not established at that time, due to a lack of real capitalism and due to the Three Estates class system. During the revolution, it was really all of the Third Estate (including the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, and the peasantry) against the First and Second Estates.

[Rafiq]

I find the Jacobin method much more interesting, especially accusations and criticism from Liberal hypocrites.

[Ostrinski]

Voted yes. Robespierre was a bro.

"The dictatorship of the proletariat is an absolutely meaningless expression without Jacobin coercion."- Vladimir Lenin

[Os Cangaceiros]

There were factions more radical than the Jacobins, like the enrages. Ultimately Robespierre and the ruling class associated with the Jacobins turned out to be conservatives, when it was all said and done.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Robespierre and Rousseau: Pre-Marxist dream team. Rousseau came up with the ideas and Robespierre put Rousseau's ideals into practice (like a boss). lol

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The French Revolution was profoundly progressive. There was no industrial proletariat -- the conditions for proletarian/socialist revolution did not yet exist. But this was a radical bourgeois revolution. That's why lots of reactionary folk hate it to this day.

[Per Levy]

sure it is inspirational, one of the big events in history that really changed something. the jacobins were allright, my major critic of them is that their terror was also aimed at the left like, allready mentioned, enrages. then again they were bourgeoisie, radical but bourgeoisue.

[Per Levy]

Can you compare it to Marxism and can you compare the age of the Committee of Public Safety with Marxism-Leninism

do you really need to bring your tendency into this, you wanna start a tendency war? no they're not comparable, 2 very different things for different times.

[Hermes]

I wouldn't really say so, but my history is fairly bad so I could be wrong.

Robespierre took it out of control, and easily led the way for Napoleon to come in. They needed clearer goals and leadership. Their meeting parties (before it became a government) were shifted and changed very often, lacking solidarity.

Also, Rousseau (again, my history isn't very good, so I may be wrong) advocated the destruction of the State, but then he also recommended its reconstruction afterward, in pretty much an authoritarian dictatorial regime.

[Ostrinski]

I wouldn't really say so, but my history is fairly bad so I could be wrong.

Robespierre took it out of control, and easily led the way for Napoleon to come in. They needed clearer goals and leadership. Their meeting parties (before it became a government) were shifted and changed very often, lacking solidarity.

Also, Rousseau (again, my history isn't very good, so I may be wrong) advocated the destruction of the State, but then he also recommended its reconstruction afterward, in pretty much an authoritarian dictatorial regime.Robespierre simply carried out the will of the bourgeoisie, he wasn't the all knowing overseer of the revolution. Conditions for republican democracy certainly weren't ripe in revolutionary France, and if Napoleon hadn't become a strongman, someone else would have.

[eric922]

I don't understand the praise Robespierre is getting here, ignoring the fact that his regime likely killed many innocent people, he was also a failure. He ended up being sent to the guillotine and paved the way for the rise of Napoleon and the eventual restoration of the Bourbon dynasty. His leadership was a failure.

[Ostrinski]

I don't understand the praise Robespierre is getting here, ignoring the fact that his regime likely killed many innocent people, he was also a failure. He ended up being sent to the guillotine and paved the way for the rise of Napoleon and the eventual restoration of the Bourbon dynasty. His leadership was a failure.Yeah, he did that all by himself. :rolleyes:

[eric922]

Yeah, he did that all by himself. :rolleyes:
Of course he didn't, do you always take things so literal? :rolleyes: The fact is, he and the forces of society he represented failed.

[Ostrinski]

Zizek on the matter
orv1kmkiEpk

[eric922]

Zizek on the matter
orv1kmkiEpk
Thank you for that video. Zizek made some interesting points, I'll have to think about them. Still, the problem for me is not that enemies of the revolution died, to hell with them, my problem is out of the 55,000 that died, how many were innocents? Either way, I'll have to think more on it. Once again, thanks for the link.

[Ostrinski]

I don't think he sought to apologize for Jacobinism, but to point out the inconsistencies in its critics.

[pluckedflowers]

Bourgeois or otherwise, any revolution that gives you gold like this is A-OK in my book:

"On September 17, 1793, the committee of the Revolutionnaire section decided to arrest Etienne Gide, clock merchant, who had supported the Brissotins; he was also accused of being haughty and proud and of often speaking ironically."

[eric922]

I don't think he sought to apologize for Jacobinism, but to point out the inconsistencies in its critics.
One thing he really got me to think about is the fact that its easy to sit here on the internet and completely condemn the Jacobins or similar groups, but as he points out all of Europe was aligned against them. What would we have done in the same situation.

As I've said before I do despise violence, but I'll freely admit it is likely a necessary thing in any revolution. If we don't use violence the other side will and then we are back at square one.

Though, one thing I find hypocritical is that a lot of critics of Revolutionary or Red Terror ignore the use of Reactionary or White Terror.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

My view of Robespierre was damaged a little after reading The Black Jacobins which documented his personal weakness where slavery was concerned, mainly his seeming desire to avoid a direct confrontation with the moderates over abolition. But I always find it strange that liberals and conservatives like to paint him as paranoid when the reaction more or less proved that his warnings about the internal threats to the republic had a lot of basis in reality. I also agree with Zizek that those of us on the left should not be afraid of the Jacobin legacy.

[Bostana]

The fact that the poor overthrew the rich even though they were more powerful should be and is an inspiration for a Revolutions across the globe.

[Ocean Seal]

I find the Jacobin method much more interesting, especially accusations and criticism from Liberal hypocrites.
Yes, especially from contemporary circles of liberals. Robespierre seems like the devil to them, and ironically he was the first real capitalist revolutionary.

[eric922]

I have to say and this is pure bias so it shouldn't be taken as an opinion on the necessity of the Terror or not, but anyone who tries to execute Thomas Paine loses major points with me. Though, I'm not sure how much influence Robespierre had over that.