The Trial and Death of Marie Antoinette

[Questionable]

I have an assignment in my European History class to analyze the trial and sentencing of Marie Antoinette during the French Revolution and determine if it was fair and just. I was wondering if I few people here could give me some tips.

Based on what I've read, most of the charges against her were indeed fabricated, such as the claims of incest with her son. She was engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the Republic with foreign powers, but it seems that nobody knew of that until long after the trial. The Committee of Public Safety had already decided her fate beforehand and decided that she would die, so the trial was a shame.

Coming from the perspective of a traditional "guilty or innocent" trial, it certainly seems unfair and unjust, but for my paper I was going to approach it from the perspective that it was not a "traditional" trial, but was the expression of the classes that composed the Third Estate triumphing over the feudal monarchy. The goal of the trial was not to find Marie Antoinette guilty of a crime, but to show that the newly-formed revolutionary government was triumphant over the old aristocratic powers. The Queen represented those powers. She was not a criminal in the literal sense, but she was a criminal because of her social position before the revolution.

One account I read of her execution said that observers cried "Long Live the Republic!" when she was beheaded, which would seem to support the notion that it was a popular decision.

Anyway, I'm not expert, so I was wondering if anyone here could tell me if my analysis would be a good one to submit, or if I'm way off base.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Zizek's article on the divine violence of terror may be helpful for you if you have not read it: http://www.lacan.com/zizrobes.htm

I think I mostly agree with him and by extension Robespierre I guess, that the existence of monarchs is proof enough of a crime that the accused were obviously guilty of. Robespierre argued that the King being proven innocent would have made the Revolution suspect as a result, and from this perspective I would say the same of the Queen.

[Os Cangaceiros]

An interesting anecdote about her execution was that the guy who took her from her where she was being held to the guillotine hacked off some of her hair with a knife, to later sell as a souvenier. I always thought that was kind of fucked up for some reason.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I guess the killing of her just seemed very dishonest. If they were going to kill her just because of her former status, then at least be honest about it. If the goal was never to find her guilty through legitimate judicial review, then why even bother with a trial? She should've just been summarily killed off in a mob action, like the September Massacres.

Foucault (who I'm not really a fan of, but whatever) basically argued this in a debate with some Maoists way back when.

[blake 3:17]

At the OP -- interesting! I'd be interested in your further conclusions and what the response is to your paper.

I have strong reservations about Zizek's defense of terror in the French Revolution. I would consider many of comments on it less legitimating for history and more provocative for ethics.

Have folks watched Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette? People tend to love it or hate it. I thought it was fabulous and a very evocative picture of life before the Revolution.

[goalkeeper]

There are a whole host of Robespierre quotes justifying this sort of thing. Theres a book of his writings printed by Verso with a Zizek preface/intro thing.

Sophie Wahnich has also written a book called In Defence of the Terror: Liberty or Death in the French Revolution which may be useful to you

[skitty]

This:http://libcom.org/library/chapter-38-trial-king

from Kropotkin. Apparently there was little doubt concerning treason.

[Geiseric]

She was an austrian noble, who were at war with france. That's the context you have to think of this in. It was propaganda, things like this were what gave french craft workers and poor farmers the republican fury that the Grand Armee had, i'm not saying that was necessarily good or bad. However her and her husband's being executed was the same reason as the execution of the romanovs, they couldn't provide the reactionaries a figurehead.

[Beeth]

Was this the same person who said, let them eat cakes. Isn't that a good enough reason?

[bcbm]

Have folks watched Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette? People tend to love it or hate it. I thought it was fabulous and a very evocative picture of life before the Revolution.

saw it in theaters. monarchs and aristocrats flirt and party and have shoes and fabulous times while much of the country starves. a compelling argument for their death

[Captain Ahab]

Was this the same person who said, let them eat cakes. Isn't that a good enough reason?
She never said that. Just google the phrase to learn more.
Honestly, I don't get the apologia from leftists over the excesses of the French Revolution. Murdering people based solely on a status they were born into is neither just or right. It makes us look like violent bloodthirsty thugs. People also solely overestimate the threat the monarchists posed before Robespierre pursued his insane foreign policy.

[Ostrinski]

The main reason for the brutality of the Jacobin government is that the rest of the European governments effectively sought to strangle the fledgling French republic in its first breaths of life. There were Austurian spies in France, for instance. They were exceptionally wary of Austurian activity, since Marie Antoinette was from Austuria, and the Jacobins worried about a potential military conflict, which did indeed happen.

And no, she never did say "let them eat cake" although it goes without saying that that was the way that she did feel. That was actually the fabrication of a proto-feminist organization, though.

[Invader Zim]

Most of the posts here are nonsense. Do not read philosophers interpretation of history if you want to pass. Read historians. And to start with look at Roger Price's concise history of France.

[Captain Ahab]

The main reason for the brutality of the Jacobin government is that the rest of the European governments effectively sought to strangle the fledgling French republic in its first breaths of life. There were Austurian spies in France, for instance. They were exceptionally wary of Austurian activity, since Marie Antoinette was from Austuria, and the Jacobins worried about a potential military conflict, which did indeed happen.

Oh come on, Revolutionary France got embroiled into conflict with so many countries because of Robespierre pursuing an insane foreign policy of declaring war on most of Europe. A lot of executions didn't even have to happen. Did the threat Austria pose really justify Antoine's death?


And no, she never did say "let them eat cake" although it goes without saying that that was the way that she did feel. That was actually the fabrication of a proto-feminist organization, though.
This is not true. To quote:

The King and Queen were patrons of the Maison Philanthropique, a society which helped the aged, blind and widows. The queen taught her daughter Madame Royale to wait upon peasant children, to sacrifice her Christmas gifts so as to buy fuel and blankets for the destitute, and to bring baskets of food to the sick. Marie-Antoinette started a home for unwed mothers at the royal palace. She adopted three poor children to be raised with her own, as well overseeing the upbringing of several needy children, whose education she paid for, while caring for their families. She brought several peasant families to live on her farm at Trianon, building cottages for them. There was food for the hungry distributed every day at Versailles, at the King’s command.
h t t p(elipsis)(forward slash)(forward slash)www(dot)marie-antoinette(dot)org/articles/reputation/
What a horrid woman deserving of death!

[Questionable]

She never said that. Just google the phrase to learn more.
Honestly, I don't get the apologia from leftists over the excesses of the French Revolution. Murdering people based solely on a status they were born into is neither just or right. It makes us look like violent bloodthirsty thugs. People also solely overestimate the threat the monarchists posed before Robespierre pursued his insane foreign policy.

Again, I think you're misinterpreting what the trial was about if you define it by traditional bourgeois "right or wrong" standards. The revolutionary state was showing that they had triumphed over feudalism, and Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were symbolic for feudalism. Whatever their personal disposition was, they represented an oppressive social system. To spare them would have cast doubt on the revolution.

I don't really care of people think us leftists are "violent bloodthirsty thugs" because usually they do. Becoming an apologist for dead monarchs won't change what bourgeois propaganda has to say about us.


Oh come on, Revolutionary France got embroiled into conflict with so many countries because of Robespierre pursuing an insane foreign policy of declaring war on most of Europe. A lot of executions didn't even have to happen. Did the threat Austria pose really justify Antoine's death?

I'm pretty certain that Robespierre opposed any type of war. He wrote time and time again about how revolutionary ideals couldn't be spread by invasion, and he opposed the decision to declare war on France. He was outvoted by other factions.


What a horrid woman deserving of death!

Do you have a more academic source available for this? I can't find anything about any of Marie Antoinette's good deeds except for blog websites like this one. Not saying it isn't true, just that I can't find any.

[Captain Ahab]

Again, I think you're misinterpreting what the trial was about if you define it by traditional bourgeois "right or wrong" standards. The revolutionary state was showing that they had triumphed over feudalism, and Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were symbolic for feudalism. Whatever their personal disposition was, they represented an oppressive social system. To spare them would have cast doubt on the revolution.

Was not overthrowing the feudal state a triumph? Would not stripping them of their social status, power, and wealth have been enough? Why not executing them have cast a significant enough doubt to threaten the revolution? Sun Yat-sen didn't need to execute Puyi for China to remain a republic.


I don't really care of people think us leftists are "violent bloodthirsty thugs" because usually they do. Becoming an apologist for dead monarchs won't change what bourgeois propaganda has to say about us.
Don't be silly only right wingers think that no matter what. The liberals are more winnable and being an apologist for dead bourgeois revolutionaries won't help combat the propaganda.



I'm pretty certain that Robespierre opposed any type of war. He wrote time and time again about how revolutionary ideals couldn't be spread by invasion, and he opposed the decision to declare war on France. He was outvoted by other factions.

:( Major history fail on my part. Regardless, much of the "necessity" for the terror was caused by Revolutionary France unnecessarily invading many countries. A lot of deaths didn't even do anything to protect the revolution.


Do you have a more academic source available for this? I can't find anything about any of Marie Antoinette's good deeds except for blog websites like this one. Not saying it isn't true, just that I can't find any.
Is the Smithsonian good enough?
h t t p(elipsis)(forward slash)(forward slash) www(dot)smithsonianmag(dot)com/history-archaeology/biography/marieantoinette(dot)html

[Questionable]

Was not overthrowing the feudal state a triumph? Would not stripping them of their social status, power, and wealth have been enough? Why not executing them have cast a significant enough doubt to threaten the revolution? Sun Yat-sen didn't need to execute Puyi for China to remain a republic.

No, personally I don't think it was enough, and to be honest I don't see why it bothers you so much. Your objections seem to be mostly rooted in liberal bourgeois humanism. As I said, the trial was the state showing it had power. The mere fact that they were putting the divine king and queen on trial was showing that people that they were in charge now, not the feudal aristocracy. Not executing them would have cast doubt on the revolution because it would have shown that they had mercy on people who negotiated with enemy spies and fiddled while Rome burned.


Don't be silly only right wingers think that no matter what. The liberals are more winnable and being an apologist for dead bourgeois revolutionaries won't help combat the propaganda.

I don't care what liberals think, either. Usually they're just as bourgeois as right-wingers. They want, as Robespierre called it, a revolution without the revolution. I see no need to waste our time with them.

Your point about apologizing for "bourgeois revolutionaries" has two errors; first, it doesn't answer my question at all. You're just saying "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?" Second, although it eventually resulted in the bourgeois state, based on what research I've done so far I don't believe the French Revolution was strictly a bourgeois movement. It had the seeds of a proletarian revolution in it with its demands for abolition of all inequalities and other statements, demands which mostly stemmed from the French working-class. Robespierre's petty-bourgeois background doomed his efforts, but he did wage a valiant struggle against the more right-wing elements of the Revolution, and for that I think he deserves some respect, although we should still be critical.


Major history fail on my part. Regardless, much of the "necessity" for the terror was caused by Revolutionary France unnecessarily invading many countries. A lot of deaths didn't even do anything to protect the revolution.

So says you. It's ironic that you'd take to claim that most deaths didn't do anything to protect the revolution when the two chief figures you're defending, Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette, were in fact cooperating with foreign powers and wealthy French exiles to stage the counter-revolution.


Is the Smithsonian good enough?

That'll do nicely. I hope you don't think I was flat-out denying what had been said, but I'm sure you understand that from a historical perspective we can't merely put all of our faith in blogs named after the people they defend who cite absolutely zero sources.

[Positivist]

@Questionable your thesis seems great to a Marxist like me but may not sound so good to your teacher depending on their ideological affiliations and powers of analysis. If your teacher is open-minded your thesis will probably be recieved enthusiastically but if they depends heavily on what they were taught or are politically conservative they may not accept such an analysis too warmly.

[Captain Ahab]

No, personally I don't think it was enough, and to be honest I don't see why it bothers you so much. Your objections seem to be mostly rooted in liberal bourgeois humanism. As I said, the trial was the state showing it had power. The mere fact that they were putting the divine king and queen on trial was showing that people that they were in charge now, not the feudal aristocracy. Not executing them would have cast doubt on the revolution because it would have shown that they had mercy on people who negotiated with enemy spies and fiddled while Rome burned.

Why couldn't stripping them of their power and bringing them down to the level of the common people have the same effect? Or throwing them in prison? Why the beheading? The execution is made only the more pointless because the revolution in France failed and the monarchy came back in the form of Napoleon. Honestly incompetence and desiring to remain in power are not crimes worthy of being beheaded for.


I don't care what liberals think, either. Usually they're just as bourgeois as right-wingers. They want, as Robespierre called it, a revolution without the revolution. I see no need to waste our time with them.
They are more easily winnable to the cause? Bolster support for the Left?

Your point about apologizing for "bourgeois revolutionaries" has two errors; first, it doesn't answer my question at all. You're just saying "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?"
What question?

In response to your more lengthy part on the revolution, although there were seeds of a proletarian one the revolution was still bourgeois and led by bourgeois.


So says you. It's ironic that you'd take to claim that most deaths didn't do anything to protect the revolution when the two chief figures you're defending, Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette, were in fact cooperating with foreign powers and wealthy French exiles to stage the counter-revolution.

Since when did I defend Louis? I question the need to execute them. Imprisonment for trying to start counter revolution would have been enough. Executing Charles I didn't stop the return of the monarchy in England either.


That'll do nicely. I hope you don't think I was flat-out denying what had been said, but I'm sure you understand that from a historical perspective we can't merely put all of our faith in blogs named after the people they defend who cite absolutely zero sources.

I just linked what I googled and didn't realize the site was a blog.

[Questionable]

Why couldn't stripping them of their power and bringing them down to the level of the common people have the same effect? Or throwing them in prison? Why the beheading? The execution is made only the more pointless because the revolution in France failed and the monarchy came back in the form of Napoleon. Honestly incompetence and desiring to remain in power are not crimes worthy of being beheaded for.

Are you asking me the exact thought process that went through the Committee of Public Safety when they decided to behead her? That I do not know, but the real question is, what does it matter? Your stance on the issue is that we should condemn revolutionary terror because it makes some liberals feel bad. In practice, you're allowing our opponents to set the terms of our praxis. You want to water down revolutionary theory to the point where it is no longer revolutionary in the name of pulling a handful of liberals over to the cause. I do not agree with your methods.


They are more easily winnable to the cause? Bolster support for the Left?

If we need to denounce revolutionary fervor in order to win people over, then you're on the fast path to reformism.


What question?

Why we should oppose their executions. Your objections are rooted in bourgeois humanism. You basically oppose their deaths because it makes you feel bad.


In response to your more lengthy part on the revolution, although there were seeds of a proletarian one the revolution was still bourgeois and led by bourgeois.

This is a vulgar simplification of the events. When the dust settled the French Revolution resulted in the bourgeois state, but to act as if the mass of working-class people who were struggling against the chains of the feudal order counted for nothing is nonsense. Their influence on the revolution can clearly be seen. Even left-wing bourgeois elements like Robespierre made positive impacts.


Since when did I defend Louis? I question the need to execute them. Imprisonment for trying to start counter revolution would have been enough. Executing Charles I didn't stop the return of the monarchy in England either.

You're defending them by saying they should not have been executed.

Once again, your claims are rooted in moralism and pacificism. So we should have put them in prison cells and cut off all contact with the outside world? Why not just kill them and make a statement to traitors of the revolution? The answer is that your views are tainted by the aforementioned bourgeois ideologies. You ask why we should kill traitors to the revolution, I ask why not? Because it's "bloodthirsty"? That is not a Marxian analysis.

The conditions in England cannot compared to the conditions in France. You're comparing apples to oranges.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

There is no way that the former king and queen could have been reduced to the level of a commoner. If they had languished in jail they would have become a symbol for the reaction and if they had been let free they simply would have returned to their scheming. They had to go, they simply had no place in the world after the revolution, and it was necessary for the revolution to assert its power by executing them.

The terror was necessary and it will be necessary again. The fact that it failed to stop the rise of Napoleon is due to some abysmal economic policies the jacobins and other factions favored which made it necessary to cut it short in order to avoid a total economic meltdown.

[Art Vandelay]

Captain Ahab is expressing nothing other then a useless display of moralism. As already pointed out by Questionable, his paradigm is certainly not a Marxist one and is tainted by bourgeois ideology. I would simply reiterate what bcbm state, they happily enjoyed the fruits of their social status while most of the country starved, 'a compelling argument for their execution.'

[Captain Ahab]

Are you asking me the exact thought process that went through the Committee of Public Safety when they decided to behead her? That I do not know, but the real question is, what does it matter? Your stance on the issue is that we should condemn revolutionary terror because it makes some liberals feel bad.
I'm condemning the French Reign of Terror for going overboard and executing many who posed no harm to the revolution. The great irony despite all of Robespierre's defenses for the Terror was that it was a failure and the Republic did not last. Perhaps we can learn to be careful with this "the end justifies the means" logic and avoid the mistakes of the past?

In practice, you're allowing our opponents to set the terms of our praxis. You want to water down revolutionary theory to the point where it is no longer revolutionary in the name of pulling a handful of liberals over to the cause. I do not agree with your methods.
:crying:



If we need to denounce revolutionary fervor in order to win people over, then you're on the fast path to reformism.
Reformism doesn't work but neither does pointless slaughter.



Why we should oppose their executions. Your objections are rooted in bourgeois humanism. You basically oppose their deaths because it makes you feel bad.

Because their deaths served no purpose that imprisonment couldn't have.


This is a vulgar simplification of the events. When the dust settled the French Revolution resulted in the bourgeois state, but to act as if the mass of working-class people who were struggling against the chains of the feudal order counted for nothing is nonsense. Their influence on the revolution can clearly be seen. Even left-wing bourgeois elements like Robespierre made positive impacts.

Don't be silly the vast majority of France's population consisted of peasants. The working class aspect constituted a minor part of the Revolution.



You're defending them by saying they should not have been executed.

Once again, your claims are rooted in moralism and pacificism. So we should have put them in prison cells and cut off all contact with the outside world? Why not just kill them and make a statement to traitors of the revolution? The answer is that your views are tainted by the aforementioned bourgeois ideologies. You ask why we should kill traitors to the revolution, I ask why not? Because it's "bloodthirsty"? That is not a Marxian analysis.
How were they "traitors" to a revolution they never supported? If you want to make an example out of someone then find an aristocrat who's done horrible crimes against the peasants and execute him. I'm sorry I lack this vicious desire to kill for the sake of killing.


The conditions in England cannot compared to the conditions in France. You're comparing apples to oranges.
I'm only showing that killing the monarch does not prevent the restoration of a monarchy.

[Questionable]

I'm condemning the French Reign of Terror for going overboard and executing many who posed no harm to the revolution. The great irony despite all of Robespierre's defenses for the Terror was that it was a failure and the Republic did not last. Perhaps we can learn to be careful with this "the end justifies the means" logic and avoid the mistakes of the past?

I have no doubt that without Robespierre's Terror the Revolution would have collapsed much faster than it did.

If I'm not mistaken, there were about 40,000 people killed in the Reign of Terror. Obviously there is no way to go about handpicking the guilty and innocent out of that huge number. However, we do know that as revolutionary tribunals began cropping up throughout France, person who were the target of popular resentment were the subjects of the terror. With the class-conscious people in power, can we say that "popular resentment" is a viable source of revolutionary justice? In my opinion, yes we can. In times such as the Reign of Terror or the Red Terror, the people know what they want and why they want it, and we should support them.

In response to your criticism of "end justifies the means" logic, I'd have to respond with a quote from Comrade Trotsky, ""The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."


:crying:

If this is going to be your response to criticism, I have no reason to continue speaking with you.


Reformism doesn't work but neither does pointless slaughter.

Pointless slaughter does not work. Which is good for us because revolutionary terror is not pointless.


Because their deaths served no purpose that imprisonment couldn't have.

Once again, their executions were the symbolic triumph of the masses over feudal oppression. And as Ethics Gradient pointed out, any other option would have yielded negative consequences; they would no doubt have continued scheming against the revolution if they had walked free as commoners, and they would have served as a rallying symbol for reaction if they had been imprisoned.


How were they "traitors" to a revolution they never supported?

You're right, though not in the way you intended to be. The monarchs were part of the feudal aristocrat class, and thus had no allegiance to the middle-class bourgeoisie or the proto-proletariat. But this just further justifies their deaths as they were class enemies.


I'm sorry I lack this vicious desire to kill for the sake of killing.

You're only proving how deeply drenched in bourgeois liberalism you are when you make statements like this.

I agree with people who say not to go to a philosopher to learn about history, but Zizek raised an excellent point; by whose standards should we judge revolutionary terror? A revolution is nothing less than a total restructuring of society, including a rejection of the old morality and the creation of a new one based on new class lines. If you condemn revolutions for being too brutal or going "too far," then you are judging them on the old bourgeois class morals of pacificism and abstract morals. In other words, you're stuck in the past.


I'm only showing that killing the monarch does not prevent the restoration of a monarchy.

It's unhelpful to compare one country to another in general terms without first analyzing the different circumstances that lead to those results. England had different levels of class composition, class consciousness, economic development, etc.

However, speaking in general terms, I would point to all the times that revolutionary terror did defeat the forces of reaction, such as Russia and China for starters.

[Captain Ahab]

There is no way that the former king and queen could have been reduced to the level of a commoner. If they had languished in jail they would have become a symbol for the reaction and if they had been let free they simply would have returned to their scheming. They had to go, they simply had no place in the world after the revolution, and it was necessary for the revolution to assert its power by executing them.
.
And if they had been killed they would have been made martyrs and symbols of reaction. The revolution was capable of asserting its power by putting them on trial.


The terror was necessary and it will be necessary again. The fact that it failed to stop the rise of Napoleon is due to some abysmal economic policies the jacobins and other factions favored which made it necessary to cut it short in order to avoid a total economic meltdown
It's easy to claim terror is necessary when you're not at the receiving end of it. I never heard of your explanation for the terror's end. I thought it had to do with Robespierre's downfall and ironic end.

[Red Commissar]

Oh come on, Revolutionary France got embroiled into conflict with so many countries because of Robespierre pursuing an insane foreign policy of declaring war on most of Europe.


That's a very simplistic if not misleading interpretation of events.

The first intervention into France by foreign powers occurred before Robespierre even went on his campaign in the Committee of Public Safety. It's really naive to say the old powers in Europe only acted out of defense against a belligerent France, even if the revolutionary assembly was the one that started the war by declaring hostilities against Austria (and this was when Robespierre was not particularly powerful yet). The War in the Vendee (monarchist insurrection with some outside support) and the first battles in the war of the first coalition occurred well before the beginning of the reign of terror. I do not think that a revolutionary France would have been left alone anyways- some powers were concerned about what message it would send, others had designs on increasing influence in Europe by taking advantage of the vacuum from the fall of one of the strongest kingdoms on the continent.

IMO a case could be made that support for Robespierre's campaign was only possible because of the circumstances from the Vendee civil war and the foreign intervention. Supporters of the revolution were concerned that they could not effectively defend their young republic if there was division and saboteurs from within. And in a way, the reign of terror achieved
its objectives in solidifying the revolutionary government, though at the cost of eliminating the diversity of different republicans.

Anyways OP, the assignment is designed essentially to be a companion to the historical perspective of the French Revolution being a violent and senseless explosion of discontent. Marie Antoinette trial was not fair from a bourgeois standpoint, and you could make the same case for other trials carried out by the Committee of Public Safety. These trials from a perspective of legal process in the United States were not "fair" as the sentences were already decided and there was no real way an accused could be successfully spared.

I do not see how'll you would argue otherwise to a history class that is based on the common interpretation above, uninterested students, and the usual outrage that comes about from the violence in the French revolution. It's not worth rocking the boat here since the assignment is stacked against you anyways.

Of course, you could add as to why it is pointless to go into why or why not the trial was fair considering the French revolution's goals. Plus, it was not as if the French monarchy was exactly renown for a fair legal system so I'm not sure how they expected to be treated fairly by those that they had kept down so long. Even if Marie Antoinette was not involved in the same political machinations that the rest of the ancien regime was in, she was seen as representative of it.

I would also say that the decision by the Committee for Public Safety was in a way a showing that the revolutionary government could do what it wished without dissent. Plus, the ramifications of a member of royalty- one from the all-powerful Habsburgs- being tried and executed at the hands of people who frankly were not from the high ranks of aristocracy was a powerful message all on its own.

[Art Vandelay]

I thought it had to do with Robespierre's downfall and ironic end.

Revolutions devour their own children.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If I'm not mistaken, there were about 40,000 people killed in the Reign of Terror. Obviously there is no way to go about handpicking the guilty and innocent out of that huge number. However, we do know that as revolutionary tribunals began cropping up throughout France, person who were the target of popular resentment were the subjects of the terror. With the class-conscious people in power, can we say that "popular resentment" is a viable source of revolutionary justice? In my opinion, yes we can.

No, it's not a good way of establishing any sort of "justice". For one, popular resentment was also what supplied many of the victims of the Inquisition, and the witch hunts which took place throughout Europe during the 17th century, etc. Using current events to settle old scores is hardly a rational way of conducting the affairs of state. :rolleyes:

It'd be one thing if most of the Terror's victims were the members of the old ruling order. Unfortunately most were common people convicted of some kind of counter-revolutionary offense, whether real or imagined. It seems kind of pointless to argue about whether it was right or wrong at this point, though.

[Captain Ahab]

I have no doubt that without Robespierre's Terror the Revolution would have collapsed much faster than it did.
.
How?


If I'm not mistaken, there were about 40,000 people killed in the Reign of Terror. Obviously there is no way to go about handpicking the guilty and innocent out of that huge number. However, we do know that as revolutionary tribunals began cropping up throughout France, person who were the target of popular resentment were the subjects of the terror.
Hmmm I don't think I need to point out the problem in this paragraph.

With the class-conscious people in power, can we say that "popular resentment" is a viable source of revolutionary justice? In my opinion, yes we can. In times such as the Reign of Terror or the Red Terror, the people know what they want and why they want it, and we should support them.
If the people desire something completely reactionary like the beheading of a man solely for being gay should we support them?


In response to your criticism of "end justifies the means" logic, I'd have to respond with a quote from Comrade Trotsky, ""The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."
Okay.



If this is going to be your response to criticism, I have no reason to continue speaking with you.
What I quoted was not worth anything more than a smiley.



Pointless slaughter does not work. Which is good for us because revolutionary terror is not pointless.
I'm not opposed to revolutionary terror so long as doesn't get out of control like what happened in France and the death penalty is applied to those deserving of it. If every counter revolutionary was deserving of death then you should be fearful if another tendency does a revolution and determines yours counter revolutionary.



Once again, their executions were the symbolic triumph of the masses over feudal oppression. And as Ethics Gradient pointed out, any other option would have yielded negative consequences; they would no doubt have continued scheming against the revolution if they had walked free as commoners, and they would have served as a rallying symbol for reaction if they had been imprisoned.
Putting them on trial and imprisoning them would have still provided that triumph. It's not like exiled relatives to the dynasty couldn't have served as rallying points.


You're right, though not in the way you intended to be. The monarchs were part of the feudal aristocrat class, and thus had no allegiance to the middle-class bourgeoisie or the proto-proletariat. But this just further justifies their deaths as they were class enemies.
Being born into a position of wealth and privilege does not mean you should die.



You're only proving how deeply drenched in bourgeois liberalism you are when you make statements like this.
And you're drenched in Neocon luddite post-Keynesian Libertarianism.

I agree with people who say not to go to a philosopher to learn about history, but Zizek raised an excellent point; by whose standards should we judge revolutionary terror? A revolution is nothing less than a total restructuring of society, including a rejection of the old morality and the creation of a new one based on new class lines. If you condemn revolutions for being too brutal or going "too far," then you are judging them on the old bourgeois class morals of pacificism and abstract morals. In other words, you're stuck in the past.

I didn't realize that pointless murder would be okay in a post-revolutionary society.

It's unhelpful to compare one country to another in general terms without first analyzing the different circumstances that lead to those results. England had different levels of class composition, class consciousness, economic development, etc.

However, speaking in general terms, I would point to all the times that revolutionary terror did defeat the forces of reaction, such as Russia and China for starters
I'll give you Russia and China as examples of temporary success. The terror implemented in these countries was inadequate in dealing with those that would infiltrate the vanguard.

[Questionable]

No, it's not a good way of establishing any sort of "justice". For one, popular resentment was also what supplied many of the victims of the Inquisition, and the witch hunts which took place throughout Europe during the 17th century, etc. Using current events to settle old scores is hardly a rational way of conducting the affairs of state.

Which is why I said "class conscious," and I would stress the importance of that. The medieval inquisitions were not class conscious in the slightest, it was false consciousness spread by the churches.

@Captain_Ahab: As exemplified by remarks such as these:


Hmmm I don't think I need to point out the problem in this paragraph.


What I quoted was not worth anything more than a smiley.


And you're drenched in Neocon luddite post-Keynesian Libertarianism.

the user Captain_Ahab is either incapable or uninterested in a serious discussion over the matter with me, and is instead more interested in meaningless taunts. If his style of debate is to discount entire paragraphs because he doesn't feel like they're worth his time, then he is not worth my time either, and I will no longer respond to any of his childishness. It seems that post people participating in this thread don't see much value in his viewpoint anyway, so I don't need to put the effort into rebutting his views when they've already been rebutted.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Which is why I said "class conscious," and I would stress the importance of that. The medieval inquisitions were not class conscious in the slightest, it was false consciousness spread by the churches.

What I'm saying is that most of the people who were settling scores weren't driven by religion or anything else, that was just a vehicle through which they could hurt others. Would that not happen even in a "class conscious" revolution? Maybe it's the indoctrination talking, but I've always felt that one should be able to support claims with facts and evidence, not just popular sentiment.

[Questionable]

What I'm saying is that most of the people who were settling scores weren't driven by religion or anything else, that was just a vehicle through which they could hurt others. Would that not happen even in a "class conscious" revolution? Maybe it's the indoctrination talking, but I've always felt that one should be able to support claims with facts and evidence, not just popular sentiment.

I'm open to discussion in criticism but in my opinion, in a popular class-conscious revolution, no it would not, at least not on a large scale. The medieval inquisitions were pretty much the feudal churches exercising their power. Events such as the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution were the toiling classes reconstructing society in the pursuit of their interests, not them being whipped into fervor by false consciousness. Am I saying innocent people cannot be harmed? Of course not, in the chaos of a revolution the harming if innocents is regrettable but unavoidable. But on the whole, I think the events are positive.

[Captain Ahab]

Which is why I said "class conscious," and I would stress the importance of that. The medieval inquisitions were not class conscious in the slightest, it was false consciousness spread by the churches.

@Captain_Ahab: As exemplified by remarks such as these:
.
I discounted one paragraph and your constant calling of me being a bourgeois liberal for finding a problem with pointless murder is very tiring. But seriously I doubt class consciousness justifies mob justice.

[Questionable]

I discounted one paragraph and your constant calling of me being a bourgeois liberal for finding a problem with pointless murder is very tiring. But seriously I doubt class consciousness justifies mob justice.

My only reason for discussing this with you was to see if I could properly defend my thesis statement, as you were one of the only people who seemed to have a negative view of the French Revolution. I feel like I've done so to the best of my ability. Your most recent posts have no real content, you're dishing out gems such as "Okay" and ":crying:" instead of making any real points, and when you do try to make a real point it just comes back to the same tired "Murder is wrong!" statements I've been arguing against this whole time. Perhaps you're ignorant of Marxist theory and don't understand why your viewpoint is basically bourgeois moralism, but I'm aware that objectively it is, and I don't see any point in carrying on because nothing you're saying is a valid defense of it.

[Captain Ahab]

That's a very simplistic if not misleading interpretation of events.

The first intervention into France by foreign powers occurred before Robespierre even went on his campaign in the Committee of Public Safety. It's really naive to say the old powers in Europe only acted out of defense against a belligerent France, even if the revolutionary assembly was the one that started the war by declaring hostilities against Austria (and this was when Robespierre was not particularly powerful yet). The War in the Vendee (monarchist insurrection with some outside support) and the first battles in the war of the first coalition occurred well before the beginning of the reign of terror. I do not think that a revolutionary France would have been left alone anyways- some powers were concerned about what message it would send, others had designs on increasing influence in Europe by taking advantage of the vacuum from the fall of one of the strongest kingdoms on the continent.
.
I admitted I was wrong on Robespierre having to do with the DOWs on these powers. I don't argue that France would have been left alone but that it would have had conflict with significantly less powers if the foreign policy had been different.

[Art Vandelay]

What I'm saying is that most of the people who were settling scores weren't driven by religion or anything else, that was just a vehicle through which they could hurt others. Would that not happen even in a "class conscious" revolution? Maybe it's the indoctrination talking, but I've always felt that one should be able to support claims with facts and evidence, not just popular sentiment.

I think this kinda all misses the point however, it isn't that violence is awesome, or that we get off thinking about mass murder; it is simply that in periods of major social upheaval, shit happens. As Marxists we must analyze this from the Marxist paradigm, which doesn't include useless moralism. Revolutionary terror helps quicken the pace of the transition between different modes of production. If terror is needed to help end an inhumane and barbaric system like capitalism, then terror it shall be; it hardly compares to the terror which is unleashed every year by the bourgeoisie; the capitalist tentacles which wrap themselves around every facet of the globe, with no respect for either the environment nor human life. So I'm not exactly going to shy away from the use of terror and neither should anyone else.


"There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new – revolutionary terror"

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It's easy to claim terror is necessary when you're not at the receiving end of it. I never heard of your explanation for the terror's end. I thought it had to do with Robespierre's downfall and ironic end.

The greatest excesses that the terror is known for, particularly the spontaneous actions that took place in cities outside of Paris, had been curtailed by the Jacobins weeks before thermidor in an attempt at stability. If anything the Jacobins themselves might be considered the beginning of the reaction.

[Ostrinski]

The execution of monarchs is an expression of a larger change in the balance of social forces and represents a lot more than the murder of a human being or two.

It represents the destruction of the retrograde social order that they personify and all of its oppressive characteristics. So whether its Charles being put to the sword or Louis getting his head mowed off or Nicholas getting a machine gun to the belly, it constitutes the death of their respective societal structures in a symbolic way.

So the severed heads of Marie and Louis are the revolutionary imagery of the bourgeois republic.

[Captain Ahab]

My only reason for discussing this with you was to see if I could properly defend my thesis statement, as you were one of the only people who seemed to have a negative view of the French Revolution. I feel like I've done so to the best of my ability. Your most recent posts have no real content, you're dishing out gems such as "Okay" and ":crying:" instead of making any real points, and when you do try to make a real point it just comes back to the same tired "Murder is wrong!" statements I've been arguing against this whole time. Perhaps you're ignorant of Marxist theory and don't understand why your viewpoint is basically bourgeois moralism, but I'm aware that objectively it is, and I don't see any point in carrying on because nothing you're saying is a valid defense of it.
Because not every single sentence within your thesis posts require extremely long and verbose sentences deconstructing every letter. My argument was that Marie's execution was pointless and served no purpose that imprisonment couldn't have. If your incapable of understanding why pointless murder is wrong it is not my job to explain to you why. The fact that you dismiss this as "bourgeois liberalism" and claim that in a revolution we won't use "bourgeois" morals is problematic. One can easily make the argument that viewing rape as wrong is a "bourgeois" value and that any instance of it in a revolution is justified otherwise you'd be thinking in the past. Particularly discouraging me is the fact that no matter what you or I should say neither of us will change our viewpoints at all.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Because not every single sentence within your thesis posts require extremely long and verbose sentences deconstructing every letter. My argument was that Marie's execution was pointless and served no purpose that imprisonment couldn't have. If your incapable of understanding why pointless murder is wrong it is not my job to explain to you why. The fact that you dismiss this as "bourgeois liberalism" and claim that in a revolution we won't use "bourgeois" morals is problematic. One can easily make the argument that viewing rape as wrong is a "bourgeois" value and that any instance of it in a revolution is justified otherwise you'd be thinking in the past. Particularly discouraging me is the fact that no matter what you or I should say neither of us will change our viewpoints at all.

If that is the case, then I would like to see you show how opposition to rape could be an instance of bourgeois morality.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think this kinda all misses the point however, it isn't that violence is awesome, or that we get off thinking about mass murder; it is simply that in periods of major social upheaval, shit happens. As Marxists we must analyze this from the Marxist paradigm, which doesn't include useless moralism. Revolutionary terror helps quicken the pace of the transition between different modes of production. If terror is needed to help end an inhumane and barbaric system like capitalism, then terror it shall be; it hardly compares to the terror which is unleashed every year by the bourgeoisie; the capitalist tentacles which wrap themselves around every facet of the globe, with no respect for either the environment nor human life. So I'm not exactly going to shy away from the use of terror and neither should anyone else.

uselessmoralismuselessmoralismuselessmoralismusele ssmoralism
uselessmoralismuselessmoralismuselessmoralismusele ssmoralism
uselessmoralismuselessmoralismuselessmoralismusele ssmoralism
uselessmoralismuselessmoralismuselessmoralismusele ssmoralism
uselessmoralismuselessmoralismuselessmoralismusele ssmoralism
uselessmoralismuselessmoralismuselessmoralismusele ssmoralism
uselessmoralismuselessmoralismuselessmoralismusele ssmoralism!

Unfortunately most people outside the intellectual bubble of revleft think that murdering people who don't deserve it is, y'know, a bad thing. Maybe even something to be consciously avoided...? Who knows. All I know is that I get irritated by people on revleft blandly stating that "THE REVOLUTION MEANS CEASELESS BLOOD AND TERROR!" when they'd probably freeze like a snowcone if someone pulled a knife on them. :rolleyes: It'd be one thing if mass violence had an awesome track record, and didn't ultimately lead to misery, famine, and dictatorship (the bad kind, not the enlightened proletarian kind). That's not a problem of moralism...that's the very real existent problem that whenever you only use a hammer to solve your problems, everything starts to look like a nail. :rolleyes:

[Ostrinski]

I do think, though, that anyone who doesn't think the terror in France got out of hand is displaying sociopathic tendencies. It's not "moralist" to say that it's wrong to massacre people arbitrarily, that's a juvenile abuse of the term. Moralism is defined by foregoing a material analysis of the events in question for judging them purely on a moral basis. You can acknowledge that a given act or event constitutes a moral transgression without erring on the side of acknowlging the broader socio-material factors that served as the basis for it. It's almost like some people think they have become grand sociologists because they take an unorthodox, rebellious, and possibly socially unaccepted view and assume the authority to castigate all those that disagree as "moralists."

Secondly, does anyone else the double standards whenever this kind of thing gets discussed? When the topic of the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, the African diaspora, or the genocide of native Americans is discussed we are never told so condescendingly to stop moralizing and to look at things from a materialist perspective!

[Art Vandelay]

Unfortunately most people outside the intellectual bubble of revleft think that murdering people who don't deserve it is, y'know, a bad thing.

And I don't? Where have I said anything like that, I must say I don' really appreciate the inference of what you're saying here.


Maybe even something to be consciously avoided...? Who knows.

If you're going to engage with what I am saying, I would appreciate if you didn't misrepresent what I am saying.


All I know is that I get irritated by people on revleft blandly stating that "THE REVOLUTION MEANS CEASELESS BLOOD AND TERROR!" when they'd probably freeze like a snowcone if someone pulled a knife on them. :rolleyes:

Once again, another strawman, I never said anything like that and I also don't claim to be very tough.


It'd be one thing if mass violence had an awesome track record, and didn't ultimately lead to misery, famine, and dictatorship (the bad kind, not the enlightened proletarian kind). That's not a problem of moralism...that's the very real existent problem that whenever you only use a hammer to solve your problems, everything starts to look like a nail. :rolleyes:

So you deny the necessity of 'revolutionary terror' then? I don't even understand how what I am saying is at all a point of contention among the left.

[Art Vandelay]

Secondly, does anyone else the double standards whenever this kind of thing gets discussed? When the topic of the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, the African diaspora, or the genocide of native Americans is discussed we are never told so condescendingly to stop moralizing and to look at things from a materialist perspective!

Obviously when the discussion of the Holocaust comes up, I view it as a disgusting event; however this does nothing to analyze the material conditions which lead to the situation. So yes, I would tell you to look at things from a material perspective, if you want to have any understanding of the events, ie: the rise of the petite-bourgeoisie, the events being necessitated by German capital, etc.

[Art Vandelay]

I do think, though, that anyone who doesn't think the terror in France got out of hand is displaying sociopathic tendencies.

Yeah cause you can totally hand out proper and accurate mental health diagnosis's from your limited experience with people over the internet. Give me a beak.

[Questionable]

I do think, though, that anyone who doesn't think the terror in France got out of hand is displaying sociopathic tendencies.

Who is saying this? I cannot find an example in this thread. Both me, 9mm, and most of the other people in this thread have admitted that accidents happen during periods of revolutionary terror.


It's not "moralist" to say that it's wrong to massacre people arbitrarily, that's a juvenile abuse of the term. Moralism is defined by foregoing a material analysis of the events in question for judging them purely on a moral basis. You can acknowledge that a given act or event constitutes a moral transgression without erring on the side of acknowlging the broader socio-material factors that served as the basis for it.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. It is not moralist to say that murder is immoral? By whose standards are we judging these events? Morals don't exist in a vacuum, as I'm sure you already know. An act is only a "moral trangression" when it is a transgression against a certain class, so whose class are we speaking of when we criticize revolutionary terror?


It's almost like some people think they have become grand sociologists because they take an unorthodox, rebellious, and possibly socially unaccepted view and assume the authority to castigate all those that disagree as "moralists."

I assume this is in reference to me. All I can say is that I've thought about my views and I'm not just saying them so I can appear "unorthodox" and "rebellious." If users like Captain_Ahab are expressing a position that I perceive as being bourgeois-moralistic, I will criticize them as such, and they can prove me wrong if I am wrong.


Secondly, does anyone else the double standards whenever this kind of thing gets discussed? When the topic of the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, the African diaspora, or the genocide of native Americans is discussed we are never told so condescendingly to stop moralizing and to look at things from a materialist perspective!

If this is a covert reference at me, all I can say is that it is a misrepresentation of my viewpoint. I'm personally all for analyzing the materialist logic behind events such as the Holocaust (Bordgia wrote a good essay on it actually) instead of writing them off as examples of "evil capitalism." I know what you're referring to because there are some leftists who seem to turn a blind eye to these things, but I am not one of them. I'm for a consistent materialist analysis of events under all social systems.

[Art Vandelay]

I am honestly surprised to see such ad-hominem attacks coming from OC and Ostrinski, it is out of character.

[Geiseric]

The king and queen were dirtbags who tried to escape to the reaction in Austria, who for their whole lives oppessed and starved and waged war on whoever they thought were below them. I'd consider most monarchy as sub human. They are in power from nothing but authority, and happily executed jews and radicals en masse. Good riddance.

[Rurkel]

Comrades! I notice that some of you are taking bourgeios, non-revolutionary lines on the so-called "mass killings". Will a "mass killing" further the aims of the proletarian revolution? Then it is to be supported. Will it harm the revolution? Then it is to be opposed. Will it neither harm, nor advance the revolution? Then it is to be neither supported, nor opposed. Rite, comrades? :thumbup1:

Don't care much about Marie Antoinette, BTW.