Was Napoleon progressive?

[jacobin1949]

Do you consider Napoleon a progressive force in history or reactionary?

This is what Stalin had to say

" Reference is made to Napoleon and it is said that Hitler is acting like him, that he resembles Napoleon in every way. But, firstly, Napoleon's fate must not be forgotten. And, secondly, Hitler no more resembles Napoleon than a kitten resembles a lion. For Napoleon fought against the forces of reaction and relied on progressive forces, whereas Hitler, on the contrary, relies on the forces of reaction and fights the forces of progress. Only the Hitlerite fools in Berlin fail to realize that the enslaved peoples of Europe will fight"

By the way Napoleon was not short. And never fought an aggressive war.

[Dimentio]

Compared to his enemies (except Britain), he was progressive, but his regime turned less and less progressive each passing year. But it was still more developed, progressive and civilised than the "enlightened despotisms" in central and eastern Europe, especially concerning ethnic minorities and ordinary people.

In Napoleonic France, everyone could theoretically become everything.

[Ismail]

As a note, didn't Napoleon's leadership help lead to the decline of French colonization?

[spartan]

The only thing Napoleon was truely progressive in was the military and its organization and tactics (And even that was just dusting off some old tactics in use by the famous ancient commanders such as Alexander and Hannibal).

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:56 pm
The only thing Napoleon was truely progressive in was the military and its organization and tactics (And even that was just dusting off some old tactics in use by the famous ancient commanders such as Alexander and Hannibal).
He was progressive in rooting up the old feudal order, consolidate the structure of the republic and institute a basic legal code which were equal for all (in the classic liberal sense).

I mean, the first Chinese emperor was progressive according to the standards of his time.

The Greek slave-based city-states were progressive compared to the despotic regimes existing prior to their birth.

Heck, even the Japanese Emperor was progressive in the 19th century, uprooting feudalism and modernising Japan using brutal methods.

The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was progressive compared to the earlier djahelite tribal system.

Progressiveness =/= "Goodness"

Progressiveness = Adapting the social conditions after the level of development of the productive forces of a given society.

During the right conditions, even a complete drawling lunatic like Vlad III Dracula could be seen as a progressive force.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:15 pm
As a note, didn't Napoleon's leadership help lead to the decline of French colonization?
According to Marx, colonialism and imperialism were progressive forces for that time, because they developed the capitalist mode of production.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:43 pm
Do you consider Napoleon a progressive force in history or reactionary?

This is what Stalin had to say

" Reference is made to Napoleon and it is said that Hitler is acting like him, that he resembles Napoleon in every way. But, firstly, Napoleon's fate must not be forgotten. And, secondly, Hitler no more resembles Napoleon than a kitten resembles a lion. For Napoleon fought against the forces of reaction and relied on progressive forces, whereas Hitler, on the contrary, relies on the forces of reaction and fights the forces of progress. Only the Hitlerite fools in Berlin fail to realize that the enslaved peoples of Europe will fight"

By the way Napoleon was not short. And never fought an aggressive war.


Napoleon was a dictator like Franco or Bush

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 10, 2007 06:54 pm--> (marxist_god @ December 10, 2007 06:54 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 07:43 pm
Do you consider Napoleon a progressive force in history or reactionary?

This is what Stalin had to say

" Reference is made to Napoleon and it is said that Hitler is acting like him, that he resembles Napoleon in every way. But, firstly, Napoleon's fate must not be forgotten. And, secondly, Hitler no more resembles Napoleon than a kitten resembles a lion. For Napoleon fought against the forces of reaction and relied on progressive forces, whereas Hitler, on the contrary, relies on the forces of reaction and fights the forces of progress. Only the Hitlerite fools in Berlin fail to realize that the enslaved peoples of Europe will fight"

By the way Napoleon was not short. And never fought an aggressive war.


Napoleon was a dictator like Franco or Bush [/b]
Well, yes he was, but that doesn't necessarily negate him being progressive.

[Lynx]

Did Naploeon (and Ghengis Khan) recognize and reward merit?

[Red Rebel]

Yes. They were benevolent dictators. They helped the citizens in education, healthcare, rewarding merit, ect. Yet all power belonged to them.

IIRC Napoleon had the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen posted everywhere. In a way he aided in the rise of capitalism and decline of feudalism. So yes, in his time, Napoleon was progressive.


Originally posted by "Mrdie"
As a note, didn't Napoleon's leadership help lead to the decline of French colonization?

Conquering Europe as opposed to Africa? :P

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Red Rebel+December 10, 2007 07:28 pm--> (Red Rebel @ December 10, 2007 07:28 pm)
"Mrdie"
As a note, didn't Napoleon's leadership help lead to the decline of French colonization?

Conquering Europe as opposed to Africa? :P [/b]
There was a time when France controlled a lot more of African / Southern territory.

It's not much of a change, but it is definitely a change: conquering your neighbors as opposed to people thousands of miles away. Napoleon was imperialist, but not as imperialist as his predecessors. So he was progressive.

[jacobin1949]

Most of Napoleon's wars were the result of the Continental monarchies attempting to crush the French Revolution.

The only cases of clear-cut French aggression were against Spain and Russia. And to be fair they were trading with the UK and thus aiding his prime enemy. Other than that I don't believe Napoleon fired the first shot in any conflict.

There is of course Egypt, but it was a far more benevolent imperialism than the British. Some of his generals converted to Islam. And Napoleon actually proclaimed "I have made war against your great enemy the Pope and imprisoned him". Napoleon made a far more convincing liberator in Egypt than Bush does in Iraq.

Compared to Robespierre Napoleon was reactionary. But a Jacobin regime in France would have never had peace until they either conquered Europe or were destroyed.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 11, 2007 12:54 am--> (marxist_god @ December 11, 2007 12:54 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 07:43 pm
Do you consider Napoleon a progressive force in history or reactionary?

This is what Stalin had to say

" Reference is made to Napoleon and it is said that Hitler is acting like him, that he resembles Napoleon in every way. But, firstly, Napoleon's fate must not be forgotten. And, secondly, Hitler no more resembles Napoleon than a kitten resembles a lion. For Napoleon fought against the forces of reaction and relied on progressive forces, whereas Hitler, on the contrary, relies on the forces of reaction and fights the forces of progress. Only the Hitlerite fools in Berlin fail to realize that the enslaved peoples of Europe will fight"

By the way Napoleon was not short. And never fought an aggressive war.


Napoleon was a dictator like Franco or Bush [/b]
Just like progressive =/= good, dictator =/= bad. The dictatorship of the proletariat is an obvious example, as well as Castro's Cuba and most socialist countries.

As for Napolean, I agree with Stalin. What does it benefit us to compare one militeristic ruler to another? The "antichrist" label is ludicrous, as Napolean was never in the same league as Hitler. And as far as I know, the people loved him, because he was basically the first French ruler to allow freedom of religion, and he basically followed Machiavelli's war tactics.

Concisely, my answer is yes, he was progressive for his time.

[Angry Young Man]

The case for Napoleon being progressive:
-He oversaw and acted upon the destruction of a political system that was completely unchanged since the fall of Rome (around about 1,313 years)
-He separated the church from the state
-For a while, it was the most democratic country in Europe

The case for Napoleon being a reactionary:
-He was a touch brutal, which of course is completely unnecessary in restructuring a whole society
-Marxist_god says so. Of course, M_G is the foremost marxist theorist since Luxemburg.

[oujiQualm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:54 pm
The case for Napoleon being progressive:
-He oversaw and acted upon the destruction of a political system that was completely unchanged since the fall of Rome (around about 1,313 years)
-He separated the church from the state
-For a while, it was the most democratic country in Europe

The case for Napoleon being a reactionary:
-He was a touch brutal, which of course is completely unnecessary in restructuring a whole society
-Marxist_god says so. Of course, M_G is the foremost marxist theorist since Luxemburg.
Yes he was pregressive in the sense of preparing France for a bourgeois stage of development. Careeers open to talens, secularization, giving more rights to the jews in Germany, these are all considered classic "advances" over the older feudal- aristocratic modes. Remember the Marx claimed that capitalism played a progressive role too.


Again, good and provocative question!

[Red Terror Doctor]

Let's not forget that Napoleon prosecuted a cruel and vicious war in Haiti since he did not want to lose France's most valuable colony. The slaves won the war and Napoleon had to sell New Orleans territory to the USA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lousiana_purchase

Check out the book: "The Black Jacobins"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Jacobins

[jacobin1949]

Originally posted by Red Terror [email protected] 14, 2007 06:52 pm
Let's not forget that Napoleon prosecuted a cruel and vicious war in Haiti since he did not want to lose France's most valuable colony. The slaves won the war and Napoleon had to sell New Orleans territory to the USA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lousiana_purchase

Check out the book: "The Black Jacobins"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Jacobins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crime_of_Napoleon

The Crime of Napoleon (in French Le Crime de Napoléon) is a controversial book published in 2005 by French historian Claude Ribbe, who is himself of Caribbean origin. In the book, Ribbe advances the thesis that it was Napoleon during the Haitian Revolution, not Hitler and the Nazis 140 years later, who first used gas chambers as a method of mass execution. The book caused a minor political and academic storm when it was published, and remains contentious to this day.

In the early 19th Century, the French colonies of Haiti and Guadeloupe were hit by a series of massive slave rebellions. Napoleon was in charge of putting them down, and he did so with brutal efficiency. Ribbe claims that some of Napoleon's men refused to do as they were ordered, and then later wrote journals describing the massacre. From these passages, he claims that Napoleon's troops burnt sulphur (readily collected from nearby volcanoes) to make sulphur dioxide gas, which is extremely poisonous. This would have been effective at helping to quell the rebelling Caribbean slaves.

Ribbe's most controversial accusation is that the holds of ships were used as makeshift gas chambers; he says that up to 100,000 black slaves were murdered in them. These revelations are still in considerable academic dispute, but when the book was published, the French establishment was quick to condemn his allegations. The French newspaper France Soir, for instance, published a stinging editorial, calling the claims of the book inane.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:22 am
Did Naploeon (and Ghengis Khan) recognize and reward merit?
Yes. Genghis Khan built his entire empire on merit.

[Red Terror Doctor]

Here's Alan Woods On Napoleon:

http://www.marxist.com/rise-fall-napoleon-bonaparte1-5.htm


http://www.marxist.com/rise-fall-napoleon-bonaparte2-3.htm

http://www.marxist.com/rise-fall-napoleon-bonaparte3-4.htm

http://www.marxist.com/rise-fall-napoleon-bonaparte4-5.htm

[Holden Caulfield]

marxism states the progression of stages of class development,
Naploeon was progressive, he gets abuse now because we live in a time when we are ready for socialism, in thier time they were ready for bourgosie

but then again he put him self above liberty creating the empire, which i think is an example of power seducing an oppotunist not necessasarily an ideological move.

more like stalin than hitler, statues of Stalin were made in the USSR dipicting him in a very similar stance (hand in jacket), and obvs Orwells evil pig

[chimx]

Napoleon was extremely progressive and made significant lasting changes to Europe which helped to normalize the emergence of capitalism. He pushed through tax reforms and bank reforms. He changed the justice system and created a strong system of meritocracy.

In terms of his effect on European society, I can't think of a more progressive person from the time period.