|
Pope Guilty posted:There's no need to wait for monarchs and aristocrats to get violent. Their rule is violence. This is assuming the magnitude of the political killings instigated by Robespierre were rational or useful to the cause of maintaining revolution, and not the same orgy of insane paranoia perpetrated by countless latter-day revolutionaries. I see no evidence for the former. Sure, there's an argument to guillotine the royal family, but were the tens of thousands of victims, plenty of them peasants condemned by neighbors with axes to grind, really a danger to the revolution? What role did they play in the terror that "lasted a thousand years"?
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:
I didn't even mean that we should execute them per se, just condemn them and put them in jail or just take all of their assets and dismember their organizations. Or whatever amounts to justice. The lack of this kind of response is part of the problem of fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The archduke was killed by serbian nationalists, because he was attempting to grant serbs greater autonomy in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and that would undermine serb nationalism. How the gently caress is anarchism in there at all. And in any event Serbian nationalism turned out to be a bad idea, whereas the Austrian-Hungarian ideals of pan-Europeanism turned out to be basically the only refuge from the history of war so welp
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I see no reason why the removal of an existing power structure requires the literal rolling of heads to accomplish. Of course the existing structure will resist its existence coming to an end but violence against them should be in response to them becoming violent and be proportional. Well in France the massacres begun when the Paris population was being gathered to go to the front and fight the incoming army of Prussian and French-reactionaries that had avowed to slaughter the Paris population if they were resisted. Let me tell you this, if a revolution occurred in my country and I found myself pressganged to go fight a seemingly hopeless battle against an army organized by the reactionaries I'll want to make sure as well that those motherfuckers won't be left behind my back to to gloat over my body if we are defeated. It's easy for us to condemn those actions because we are used to a more or less functional political system, but for these people it was literally kill or be killed and at times it was kill and be killed. It's not like the reactionaries would stop organizing and calling on foreign armies to restore the status quo ante. The massacres of the aristocracy were an escalation, the revolutionaries didn't even kill the king until 3 years into the revolution and likely would have been satisfied with a constitutional monarchy similar to the british if the reactionaries didn't prove time and time again that nothing short of a bloody revenge and a return to the pre-revolution situation would ever satisfy them. Were there excesses? Obviously! But if they had played it any other way they would have lost much sooner and all the progress would have been undone. It's also funny in a bitter way that the period when thousands of aristocrats were killed is called The Terror, but the preceding period when millions of workers were literally starved to death by those same aristocrats is called Business as Usual. quote:Terrors very rarely end well for those that instigate them. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:He did. He repeatedly said that he expected to die for what he did, but saw it as necessary. That didn't stop him trying to shoot himself rather than face trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Jedit posted:That didn't stop him trying to shoot himself rather than face trial. Besides the fact that it doesn't seem likely that an educated guy like that would try to kill himself by shooting himself in the jaw, and that he was most likely shot by his captors, what difference does it really make to the question of whether or not he was prepared to die?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Besides the fact that it doesn't seem likely that an educated guy like that would try to kill himself by shooting himself in the jaw, and that he was most likely shot by his captors, what difference does it really make to the question of whether or not he was prepared to die? 1) Having an education does not make you automatically knowledgeable about guns. 2) If Robespierre had been willing and prepared to die, why would he panic when they came for him?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Jedit posted:1) Having an education does not make you automatically knowledgeable about guns. What, are we ignoring the countless political and military leaders that throughout history chose to kill themselves rather than be captured and/or tried? What is that supposed to prove other that once he achieved all he possibly could he was unwilling to go through prolonged suffering or humiliation and preferred a quick death?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:What, are we ignoring the countless political and military leaders that throughout history chose to kill themselves rather than be captured and/or tried? Make a list of the ones who said they expected from the start of their careers to be killed for what they did. It will be very short. Most of these people didn't expect to lose, and most of them expected to get away with what they did when they won.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
So what? Is the manner of his death what determines if he truly believed he was doing the right thing? I really don't see where you are going with this. At the end of the day all it comes down to is he preferred to die by his own hand than be executed, not unheard of by any degree and doesn't tell you anything about him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
I suspect it's some nonsense about how he should've stood trial for his beliefs and gone to his death nobly and so on and so on and romantic silliness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
I'm glad of Robespierre and the Terror. Personally I think they are good. On the other hand, it's not at all good to go and kill fascists outright without reasonable conditions that warrant that. But liberals just won't seem to agree with suppressing them, taking their property and keeping them out of parlement. In fact, aside from some lipservice from 'Good Honest Liberals', they seem to be welcoming fascists, going so far as teaming up with them in coalitions. In any case, the radical liberals of then are the radical socialists, communists and anarchists of now, fueled by the same historical spirit. IMHO the people that think this way inevitably stop being liberals and either become conservatives or radicalize farther left (both is fine with me). The remaining majority of liberals will support the status quo no matter what. They are the regressives of today. They will continue to struggle for the rechtsstaat, for legalism and minarchism and constitutionalism despite this collection of meaningless phrases having lost any semblance of actual power or utility in late postmodern capitalist society. As long as the constitution says we're all equal and Very Nice [said in borat voice] it's good, material equality be damned. As long as the power of government is limited by the laws of the people then we can continue having a functional democracy, long-suspected NSA surveillance state, secret CIA prisons, extra-judicial assassinations and ever-worsening class distinctions be damned. Fascism in Europe is exactly why Robespierre Was Right, and the Terror was Good: all the hater-rear end liberals that pull grade school equivocations of all ideological violence are not at all being inconsistent with either their ideology or historical precedence. At best they are tacitly complicit with the current process of far-right radicalization of politics all the while trying to maintain their social progressive veneer, tempering it as always with holier than thou accusations of 'be reasonable', 'be practical', 'be utilitarian', slung from their rational objective high horse. At worst they are fascists waiting for a deece alibi to start singing Horst Wessel. Don't try to convince a liberal that fascism is bad. They know. Sie wissen es, aber sie tun es is a welcome subversion of the old saying here. quote:But all this is already well known: it is the classic concept of ideology as 'false consciousness', misrecognition of the social reality which is part of this reality itself. Our question is: Does this concept of ideology as a naive consciousness still apply to today's world? Is it still operating today? In the Critique of Cynical Reason, a great bestseller in Germany (Sloterdijk, 1983), Peter Sloterdijk puts forward the thesis that ideology's dominant mode of functioning is cynical, which renders impossible- or, more precisely, vain — the classic critical-ideological procedure. The cynical subject is quite aware of the distance between the ideological mask and the social reality, but he none the less still insists upon the mask. The formula, as proposed by Sloterdijk, would then be: "they know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it". Cynical reason is no longer naïve, but is a paradox of an enlightened false consciousness: one knows the falsehood very well, one is well aware of a particular interest hidden behind an ideological universality, but still one does not renounce it. SSJ2 Goku Wilders fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I suspect it's some nonsense about how he should've stood trial for his beliefs and gone to his death nobly and so on and so on and romantic silliness. Yes, but not my romantic silliness. When you say things like "I will be killed for what I'm doing, but I'm doing it anyway because it is necessary" then you want people to think you are making a noble sacrifice. When they came for Robespierre and he responded with panic - which is certainly the case whether he botched the suicide attempt (likely) or was shot in a struggle - his convictions were proven hollow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Nobility is a lie and noble suffering only benefits the oppressor, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Yes, but not my romantic silliness. When you say things like "I will be killed for what I'm doing, but I'm doing it anyway because it is necessary" then you want people to think you are making a noble sacrifice. When they came for Robespierre and he responded with panic - which is certainly the case whether he botched the suicide attempt (likely) or was shot in a struggle - his convictions were proven hollow. Or maybe people just don't want to die even if they accept that they might be killed for what they see as the greater good?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Yes, but not my romantic silliness. When you say things like "I will be killed for what I'm doing, but I'm doing it anyway because it is necessary" then you want people to think you are making a noble sacrifice. When they came for Robespierre and he responded with panic - which is certainly the case whether he botched the suicide attempt (likely) or was shot in a struggle - his convictions were proven hollow. You should do stand up comedy
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Jedit posted:When they came for Robespierre and he responded with panic [..] his convictions were proven hollow. Well, aren't you a tough guy. I bet when your times comes you'll look death in the eye with a smirk on your lips.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
quote:The court-martial told him: "You are under sentence of death." Leviné answered: "We Communists are always under sentence of death." Oh god 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Well, aren't you a tough guy. I bet when your times comes you'll look death in the eye with a smirk on your lips. Your straw man should be put up against the wall and shot. I'm not the one talking smack about doing things that I know will lead to my death, so how I'd react to impending doom is completely without relevance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Oh god That isn't Leviné though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Your straw man should be put up against the wall and shot. I'm not the one talking smack about doing things that I know will lead to my death, so how I'd react to impending doom is completely without relevance. And just because jews and muslims knew that continuing to practice their faith in secret would probably end up with them dead I doubt any of them were cheerful when time came to go to the stake. You can do poo poo that you think will get you killed if you think it's worth your life. That doesn't mean you have to chose a protracted and/or humiliating death in order for it to "really count". He did what he thought he had to, knowing that it would likely get him killed and in the end it did. What more did you want of him, a big speech to an hostile assembly? What for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:You can do poo poo that you think will get you killed if you think it's worth your life. That doesn't mean you have to chose a protracted and/or humiliating death in order for it to "really count". He did what he thought he had to, knowing that it would likely get him killed and in the end it did. What more did you want of him, a big speech to an hostile assembly? What for? I don't know, it made Danton look pretty badass by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:I don't know, it made Danton look pretty badass by comparison. Shame it didn't make him incorruptible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Robespierre must not have really believed in what he was doing if he knew he was going to die for it but didn't die ~*bravely*~.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
In the same vein, Croatian antifascist Stjepan Filipovic, moments before execution, 1942  In more recent European Fascist news:  Also, apparently the Swedish far right Sverigedemokraterna are now also becoming interested to work together with Front national and the PVV
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
So the 50,000+ people murdered during the Terror, a huge majority of whom most likely committed no more serious a crime than having jealous neighbors, were an acceptable sacrifice because Robespierre really believed in what he was doing? Was every last execution really necessary to preserve the Revolution, or did they alternatively rob it of legitimacy and public support? I'm failing to see what the difference is when compared to Stalin's purges or Mao's Cultural Revolution. An orgy of hysterical violence isn't any less useless and counter-productive if the paranoid megalomaniac who carries it out has really strong convictions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
That's because you are dumb and don't actually know anything or read anything (this thread included) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
The economist is trash but I am disappointed they didn't use the best picture of the UKIP guy for that cover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:That's because you are dumb and don't actually know anything or read anything (this thread included) Thorough argument. Care to be specific? I read through your rambling pants-making GBS threads of a post and didn't spot any insight I haven't seen from plenty of freshman Marxists before you, so would you like to try to convince me, or is namecalling the best you can do? EDIT: Hahaha, I just read your custom title. Maybe don't bother trying, little guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Red Pyramid posted:Thorough argument. Care to be specific? I read through your rambling pants-making GBS threads of a post and didn't spot any insight I haven't seen from plenty of freshman Marxists before you, so would you like to try to convince me, or is namecalling the best you can do? ironically i got my title from a petty liberal buffoon who proudly exclaimed to have finished the manifesto by his early teens and was left unconvinced some things never change
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The economist is trash but I am disappointed they didn't use the best picture of the UKIP guy for that cover. A proud example of nationalistic white supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Red Pyramid posted:So the 50,000+ people murdered during the Terror, a huge majority of whom most likely committed no more serious a crime than having jealous neighbors, were an acceptable sacrifice because Robespierre really believed in what he was doing? Was every last execution really necessary to preserve the Revolution, or did they alternatively rob it of legitimacy and public support? I'm failing to see what the difference is when compared to Stalin's purges or Mao's Cultural Revolution. An orgy of hysterical violence isn't any less useless and counter-productive if the paranoid megalomaniac who carries it out has really strong convictions. I too enjoy uncritically applying 21st century liberal moral values and hindsight to judge a historical country desperately fighting against the rest of Europe so that everyone withut a "de" in their name wouldn't be put back in chains. Basically you're being very, very silly here and should think about what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 19:39
|
|
Red Pyramid posted:So the 50,000+ people murdered during the Terror, a huge majority of whom most likely committed no more serious a crime than having jealous neighbors, were an acceptable sacrifice because Robespierre really believed in what he was doing? Was every last execution really necessary to preserve the Revolution, or did they alternatively rob it of legitimacy and public support? I'm failing to see what the difference is when compared to Stalin's purges or Mao's Cultural Revolution. An orgy of hysterical violence isn't any less useless and counter-productive if the paranoid megalomaniac who carries it out has really strong convictions. Are you aware that in 1793 the French republic was under overwhelming foreign assault? The aggressors had a massive material advantage, didn't think the republic was legitimate, and cared nothing about French public opinion. The republic was not going to survive if it didn't engage in total war against the invaders, which required unprecedented action - including mass-scale conscription and suppression of internal enemies. The sole alternative was the destruction of the republic and the total victory of criminal, treasonous and incompetent French feudalists. It is simply naive to argue that there was a better alternative. Europe at the time was a brutish place, suffering from chronic outbursts of violence orchestrated by petty feudal tyrants. Most of our ancestors at the time were living as peasants in a perennial state of ignorance and servitude. All the standards of dignity and humanity we take for granted now were non-existent at the time for the overwhelming majority. Who is to say what Europe would look like if the French revolution had been defeated in five years? I say we have all the reasons in the world to be grateful that it lasted longer than that, regardless of our political affiliations. In the end, the resurgence of the French republic and the exploits of its Napoleonic offshoot delivered a mortal blow to the debased and vile European feudal order, which was justly relegated to oblivion in the century thereafter.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
I'm far from an expert on the French revolution or its pre-Napoleon wars but wikipedia seems to paint the picture that revolutionary France started the war of the 1st coalition herself. It seems Europe was content to sit back as long as Louis XVI's head remained attached to his neck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Pillnitz
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
One of the problems of toppling any regime is that it creates a power vacuum and a knowledge vacuum, both caused directly by the people excluded from the halls of power chasing out the people that have held the reigns and operated the state. The latter renders the provisional government inept, and the former makes the provisional government particularly susceptible to strongmen or terrors. This isn't to say that all revolutions end in Hitlers or whatever, but any serious revolutionary movement should consider and address those weak points.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I'm far from an expert on the French revolution or its pre-Napoleon wars but wikipedia seems to paint the picture that revolutionary France started the war of the 1st coalition herself. It seems Europe was content to sit back as long as Louis XVI's head remained attached to his neck. I think that is way over simplifying the issue, and if anything it was clear that Austria and likely Prussia would eventually intervene. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_Manifesto didn't help, basically the allies said if the French king was touched they would take it out on the population. I think some of the phrasing Wikipedia article may also be biased because Austria and Prussia had already allied before the declaration of war. Anyway, the question of any revolutionary state is not just replacing those in power but eliminating their ability to overthrow the new government. Egypt fell to a counter-revolution because so much of the former regime still had formal and informal power. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The economist is trash but I am disappointed they didn't use the best picture of the UKIP guy for that cover. Oh my god the full series of pictures is priceless:      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-GaXa8tSBE
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Red Pyramid posted:So the 50,000+ people murdered during the Terror, a huge majority of whom most likely committed no more serious a crime than having jealous neighbors, were an acceptable sacrifice because Robespierre really believed in what he was doing? Was every last execution really necessary to preserve the Revolution, or did they alternatively rob it of legitimacy and public support? I'm failing to see what the difference is when compared to Stalin's purges or Mao's Cultural Revolution. An orgy of hysterical violence isn't any less useless and counter-productive if the paranoid megalomaniac who carries it out has really strong convictions. As someone pointed out after the Revolution the rest of Europe's monarchs felt that if they allowed Louis to be forced into a constitutional monarchy against his will was not good for them. On top of that for England this was a great opportunity to grab some easy colonial pickings from France. The exiled aristocrats sat just miles from the border and conspired with the King and foreign powers to bring armies, subdue the population, restore the property of the church and nobility and force many people back into serfdom. Internally there was a large faction of monarchists supported by the a church that stood to lose all it's lands and most of it's income and that successfully inflamed some of the illiterate rural peasantry against "the godless heathens in Paris". This fifth column was real, not a fabrication of delusional revolutionaries. Several battles were fought internally and the reactionaries were pushing for a civil war. A Prussian army invades France and is quickly marching on Paris, the Prussian general announces that any resistance will be mercilessly crushed. The bells start ringing and thousands of men are called upon to make a desperate last stand. If they lose it's all over. Their enemies will have won, the old regime will return. Now, let's say you are one of those conscripted urban proles. You are about to leave for the front and there is a justified fear that the fifth column will take that chance to revolt while the army is away and deliver Paris into the hands of the enemy. Massacres are sure to follow. What do you do? You keep looking at this through your 21th century eyes but back then organizing a sit-down in front of Versailles and uploading videos of police brutality wasn't an option. This poo poo was do or die, it was the real deal. It was a revolution. In fact it was a bigger revolution in scope than anything we have seen in the 20th century. It is impossible to change the centuries old status quo without violence if there is no reasonableness from the privileged classes and the French privileged classes were having none of this poo poo. At this point the choice was either total war or complete surrender and the retaliatory massacres that would follow. Does this excuse monsters like Jean-Baptiste Carrier? No, but it was a loving revolution, monsters on all sides will always get their due in times like these. Men like Robespierre were in charge of winning the war, that meant dealing with the internal enemies and even working with people like the aforementioned Carrier. To be quite honest I don't really like any of the people that acted as rulers on any side of the revolution. Even men like Robespierre and Marat whom I largely support were flawed and distasteful individuals but they did what the Republic needed done. I won't stand from my perch and pretend to have a moral superiority because I have the luxury of freely organizing petitions online and vote once in a while. Instead I judge the revolution, with all it's warts, all the injustices, all the killing and ask "was it worth it?" It was. Raskolnikov38 posted:I'm far from an expert on the French revolution or its pre-Napoleon wars but wikipedia seems to paint the picture that revolutionary France started the war of the 1st coalition herself. It seems Europe was content to sit back as long as Louis XVI's head remained attached to his neck. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Dusz posted:Are you aware that in 1793 the French republic was under overwhelming foreign assault? The aggressors had a massive material advantage, didn't think the republic was legitimate, and cared nothing about French public opinion. The republic was not going to survive if it didn't engage in total war against the invaders, which required unprecedented action - including mass-scale conscription and suppression of internal enemies. The sole alternative was the destruction of the republic and the total victory of criminal, treasonous and incompetent French feudalists. Okay, I understand all this. I understand that the French republic was under foreign assault, that total war was necessary to defend it, and I agree that the royal family and leading aristocrats needed and deserved the guillotine. I understand that a level of domestic political oppression was necessary. The Jacobins were on the right side of history and the Ancien regime got what it deserved. I will concede all that. What I won't concede is that The Terror, in its scale and viciousness, was either necessary for, or helpful to, the cause of the Revolution. Louis needed to go. So did royalist plotters. Did 50,000 people need to go? Really? Were all of them or even an appreciable portion a threat to the Revolution? I don't think I'm being naive or silly by saying submerging Paris in an orgy of violence may have been counterproductive to the health of the Republic. I think that's pragmatism. There is a middle ground between executing dangerous saboteurs and unleashing a free-for-all killing frenzy that ended up eating the best of its own children. Would the republic not have been better off if it could devote the resources it spent trying and executing tens of thousands of people to securing its stability and defense? Would Napoleon have been possible if the Jacobins hadn't decimated their own ranks and purged themselves of effective leaders? I'm not trying to moralize. I just don't buy that a purge on the scale of The Terror was rational or useful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 21:38
|
|