174
"Uhh, actually, this revolution that worked failed" is a classic liberalism.
It's way funnier though in this case because it was their revolution. Which they decry and produce shit like this about since the moment it ended. Bourgeoisie was the least revolutionary class in history, no other had to be forced to take power when their moment came.
They are doing Black Book for the French Revolution too now. I can't say that it's unexpected, honestly.
Just read how they advertised that rag:
A fundamental work edited by the Dominican Renaud Escande. Fifty articles on the revolution by the most outstanding French authors. Among them, among others: Pierre Chaunu, expert on the history of the 18th century, Stéphane Courtois, editor of the famous "Black Book of Communism", Jean Tulard, expert on the Napoleonic era, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Jean Sévillia, Jean-Christian Petitfils and Reynald Secher, author of "The Franco-French Genocide" about Vendée genocide.
In the first volume, the authors focus on the most important events related to the revolution.
In the second, they deal with the ideas of revolution and counter-revolution and their main representatives.
The third volume is an anthology of previously unpublished texts showing the cruelty and anti-civilization and anti-Christian role of the French Revolution.
All three volumes are collected in one volume of over 1,000 pages!
The French Revolution was usually presented as legitimate and worthy of praise, as a celebration of brotherhood and a mature work of "reason" that had been waiting for centuries. Meanwhile, the events that led to it constituted one of the bloodiest chapters of history, inaugurating a tragic series of revolutions and conflicts that marked the history of Europe until the mid-20th century. (…)
We came up with the idea of publishing "The Black Book of the French Revolution" during a conversation with one of the authors of this collection. We thought about collecting the works of the best specialists in one work, which would be both a "summary" and a "breviary". The sum of the "understatements of revolutionary historiography", containing an analysis of the most important events, both uplifting and demolishing at the same time, and a philosophical and political breviary containing portraits and views of the opponents of the revolution, whose perspective, by no means archaic, very insightfully showed the nature of the coming times of totalitarianism and democracy, this anthology finally documents the blind violence of revolutionary ideology.
Renaud Escande OP
For over a hundred years, the French Revolution was the prototype and point of reference for all those who opposed monarchies described as "absolute" and dictatorships and autocracies such as the one that existed in tsarist Russia.
Stephane Courtois Editor of "The Black Book of Communism"
Encyclopedia of knowledge about the French Revolution, its crimes and victims!
I can only answer with Mark Twain's quote:
If we really think about it, there were two Reigns of Terror; in one people were murdered in hot and passionate violence; in the other they died because people were heartless and did not care. One Reign of Terror lasted a few months; the other had lasted for a thousand years; one killed a thousand people, the other killed a hundred million people. However, we only feel horror at the French Revolution's Reign of Terror. But how bad is a quick execution, if you compare it to the slow misery of living and dying with hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery is big enough to contain all the bodies from that short Reign of Terror, but the whole country of France isn't big enough to hold the bodies from the other terror. We are taught to think of that short Terror as a truly dreadful thing that should never have happened: but none of us are taught to recognize the other terror as the real terror and to feel pity for those people.
There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
I would say the biggest indictments against the French Revolution can be found in Algeria and Haiti and Vietnam.
I don't like when people glaze the French revolution "oh it got better that it was because it's no longer a monarchy", okay thanks for democratically committing genocides on us very cool
I mean i assume as a Hexbear poster you know what historical materialism is and what Marxists mean by "historically progressive"?
Like, we think The French Revolution was a historically necessary event. France (and Europe) needed to progress from feudalism to capitalism.
That doesnt mean we think capitalist/imperialist France is good or what happened to whichever of those countries youre from was good. Just that history needs to progress so we can get to communism.
I dont want to talk down here. Just be clear with whats intended and what Marxists mean by this. None of us think that liberal capitalist France is good.
The Republic banned slavery, the empire brought it back
Liberals have to reject liberal revolutions because upholding the values of those revolutions to their logical extent just leads you down to socialism. Liberalism is ahistorical and has been since at least 1871.
there's a good quote from Trotsky (yes, bare with me) about how liberals disavow the French revolution and Marxists are the true inheritors of that struggle's legacy.
The Great French Revolution was indeed a national revolution. And what is more, within the national framework, the world struggle of the bourgeoisie for domination, for power, and for undivided triumph found its classical expression.
Jacobinism is now a term of reproach on the lips of all liberal wiseacres. Bourgeois hatred of revolution, its hatred towards the masses, hatred of the force and grandeur of the history that is made in the streets, is concentrated in one cry of indignation and fear – Jacobinism! We, the world army of Communism, have long ago made our historical reckoning with Jacobinism. The whole of the present international proletarian movement was formed and grew strong in the struggle against the traditions of Jacobinism. We subjected its theories to criticism, we exposed its historical limitations, its social contradictoriness, its utopianism, we exposed its phraseology, and broke with its traditions, which for decades had been regarded as the sacred heritage of the revolution.
But we defend Jacobinism against the attacks, the calumny, and the stupid vituperations of anaemic, phlegmatic liberalism. The bourgeoisie has shamefully betrayed all the traditions of its historical youth, and its present hirelings dishonour the graves of its ancestors and scoff at the ashes of their ideals. The proletariat has taken the honour of the revolutionary past of the bourgeoisie under its protection. The proletariat, however radically it may have, in practice, broken with the revolutionary traditions of the bourgeoisie, nevertheless preserves them, as a sacred heritage of great passions, heroism and initiative, and its heart beats in sympathy with the speeches and acts of the Jacobin Convention.
Imagine a liberal saying the words of Robespierre today?
No doubt if all men were just and virtuous; if cupidity were never tempted to devour the people’s substance; if the rich, receptive to the voices of reason and nature, regarded themselves as the bursars of society, or as brothers to the poor, it might be possible to recognize no law but the most unlimited freedom; but if it is true that avarice can speculate on the misery and tyranny itself on the despair of the people; if it is true that all the passions declare war on suffering humanity, then why should not the law repress these abuses? Why should it not stay the homicidal hand of the monopolist, as it does that of the common murderer? Why should it not concern itself with the subsistence of the people, after caring so long for the pleasures of the great, and the power of despots?
ok that's cool but today nancy pelosi was like "go back to china" at some pro-palestine protestors
I once just completely tied up a lib in knots who was poo-pooing private property getting damaged by protests by asking them “So you think the Boston Tea Party was a bad idea and unjustified?”
Liberalism is ahistorical and has been since at least 1871.
One of the main point Marx discovered when he studied economic theories (leaving 3 thick books worth of notes in the process) was that after Ricardo liberal economics stopped developing further and instead took two steps back and became ass-eating ouroboros of delusion, because otherwise it would bring them to the same point Marx himself was. And so, the liberal historiography inevitably also stopped right on the French revolution, cutting it in the good and bad parts obviously along their anachronistic post-revolution class interests. Or as would Lenin put it, their fear of revolutionary workers and peasants greatly overwhelm their fear of monarchs.
Also if you dig through replies someone calls Napoleon a fascist which seems incredibly ahistorical to me.
Yeah, the correct term is "bonapartist" which is also a pretty established and defined term, just libs don't give a shit when they can just slap "authoritarian" and immediately exchange it for any other term for "bad" their neurons can produce.
At the very least anachronistic
Why?
The term fascism didn't appear until nearly a century after Napoleon died. It would be like saying John Lilburne was a socialist.
Calling Napoleon a fascist would also open a big bucket of worms that would place nearly every European monarch under that label. It's imprecise and ahistorical. The best definitions of fascism place it as an emergency condition of capital, where the tools of imperialism are turned inward to suppress leftist movements, and this is done among popular enthusiasm. The thing most suppressed by Napoleonic code was aristocracy, not internal leftist movements. The conditions that were administered by the First French Empire were barely at the beginning stages of capitalism even existing.
In the liberal mind totalitarianism and fascism are interchangeable terms because they are the same thing.
Because in the liberal world it's important to not understand the economic and social precursors to fascism.
If you did you wouldn't be a liberal
Fascism didn't exist yet
Yes, massively so.
"this revolution that took the combined powers of Europe to stop failed actually'
an American "history buff" coworker of mine once claimed that half of France was executed by guillotine. Really stopped giving a shit about what Yankkkees think about history by that point.
Your coworker must have been guillotined as well judging by their critical thinking ability
It took like 80 years to get rid of royalty but they did finally get rid of royal figures in 1870. We can't forget about the July Monarchy and the Second Empire.
Even then, the Third Republic at the beginning was very close to bringing the Bourbons back. But, the Count of Chambord refused to accept because he didn't like the flag.
because he didn't like the flag
Dudes rock moment
Dont worry the current head of state is trying real heard to bring monarchy back 
really?
He's said pretty openly that the loss of the monarch was a mistake and "a trauma from which the nation has still not recovered".
Somehow French monarchists (small minority) still don't like him.
It is the only good thing that France has ever produced aside from the Paris Commune and yet he is trying to erase it.
Macron must hate France.
Bourbon restoration
Yes, ideally, we'd liked to have a Prosecco revolution, but no monarchy is still good.
Libs hating their own revolution will never stop being funny for me
There are a lot of good "under the mistletoe" jokes that could be made if only "gui" and "guillotine" were the same gender.
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
174 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15912 readers
557 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS