Was he based or cringe? Was the revolution itself based or cringe?
>>18283950Cringe, literally the first Commie revolution in history.
>>18283950Based until he went insane and became a deranged cult leader and tried to create is own deistic religion.
>>18284005You think executing anyone who doesn't support your schizo commie agenda is based?
>>18284007>>18284007He was not a commie.
>>18284009He was a proto-Commie 100%. That's why the Bolsheviks idolized people like him and Marat.
>>18284001>>18284007Apparently your definition of "commie" means not wanting nobility and clergy to have all the wealth and power.You know, sucking plutocrat cock will not get you into the "cool kids billionaire's club", right?
>>18284019You're a Bolshevik provocateur yourself, I see.
>>18283950Based, if anything he didn't go far enough
>>1828395010000% based. One of his archenemies that survived the Revolution & Napoleonic wars, on his metaphorical deathbed in Belgium, admitted that he & others did a great mistake & error of judgement condemning him to die. >>18284001>literally the first Commie revolution in historyMonarchic-Bolshevik inversion & disinformation of historiography. I know you'll ignore & brush it off but you really don't know how to decode political history, historiography, for what it is even with hindsight.>>18284009>>18284015>>18284019>>18284021Monarchism/Communism are common in their design and functionality. The Jacobins-Montagnards would had been 100% against the socialists, communists. It's probably the biggest disinformatory psyop still in existence. I remind you, the French Revolution was against the nobility, monarchy – against feudalism. Socialist-Communism is feudalism – or a return to feudalism – whilst secretly working or being controlled by 'deposed' nobility.FFS, socialism came into existence from monarchy (Scandinavian, Germanic...)! Communism was an adjacent stance & doctrine to depose the very social groups – the middle class, the burgeoisie, the urban industrialists & tycoons – into a permanent warring & destabilization.The Jacobins and communists are nothing alike. Maximilien Robespierre is nothing alike to any socialist or and communist born & bred out of monarchies. Socialists and communists are more similar to the nobility & royals that want to mass-murder the serfs and middle-class burgeoisie (let alone the industrialists without royal permissions & charters that were/are market makers) for not knowing their place. Robespierre, Jacobins, Montagnards would call-out socialism & communism as monarchical subversion to destabilize republicanism and return the populace back into feudalism/serfdom under a different name, parlence, vocabulary, terminologies etc.
>>18284042Why did the Bolsheviks idolize them then and do shit like name streets etc after Marat?
>>18284050Inversion – propaganda and disinformation. Same way the they spew bold-faced lies after bold-faced lies, how the russian securocracy finds it quaint to emulate nobility & ally with nobles/royals in other countries. ---Why did the junkers and the rest of the nobilities/monarchies (Scandinavian, British...) helped them reach & infiltrate into Russia? Why did bolsheviks counter-couped the February Revolution, only to torch it through a revolution and eliminate all opposition that were instrumental in removing tsarist power & reorganize the polity? Bolsheviks/soviets did more to liquidate republican liberal forces – countries & within monarchies – than eliminate the nobility families & royals. They acted as their anchor counter-enforcers, by pretending to be something they were not – the bigger the lies, repeated throughout, they bigger the chances of subversion & liquidation, without noticing by convenience sake.
>>18284086You're a total schizo who has created a fairy tale narrative to glorify French proto Commie psychopaths
>>18284124You want the obvious? If they were what they claimed to be, nobilities & royals wouldn't exist today. Instead, they focused on massmurdering republicans, everywhere they could. >>18284124>glorify French proto Commie psychopathsI glorify them – the Jacobins, Montagnards – because they were against feudalism, against the nobility family clans, against monarchy. I glorify them because they represented the republican liberal force to overturn the feudal old world order.I glorify them because the nobilities/monarchies that exist TO THIS VERY DAY still want to turn back time and re-institute feudalism.I glorify them because, without them, we wouldn't exist and we – you and I, and everyone else – wouldn't be communicating. I glorify them because they have nothing in common with socialists, communists, bolsheviks. On the contrary – the Jacobins were for the abolition of serfdom/feudalism and emancipation of what is understood as lower, middle, and burgeoisie social strata. The socialists, communists, bolsheviks were against that, similar to the nobility stance. I glorify them because Robespierre would send socialists-communists bolsheviks to the guillotine – for subverting the republic in favor of the nobility & royals, and reinstate feudalism. russians, their securocrats, have nothing in common with European republicans – they're fully aligned with the nobilities & royals, against Europeans and Americans.>Ça ira, ça ira, ça ira – la nobilité et les royals à la lanterne; ça ira, ça ira, ça ira – la nobilité et les royals on les pendra...
>acne scarred incel of his day that was all about peace until he decided to literally kill everybody
>>18284165You support the mass murder of innocent people then, including numerous fucking CHILDREN, by these French psychos? What crime did the fucking kids commit?Oh wait, it was purposely to spread terror amonst the populace (which they explicitly said) right? So it's ok.
>>18284359The children were infected with anti revolutionaryism from their families and also had to he exterminated.
>>18283950Cringe. It was a grand spergout that evolved into tyranny again because they lacked the proper philosophical and political framework to establish a revolutionary government (marxism). Most of their ideology was just "what if we killed the king... man" "we'd be like the animals man, freee" and that was obviously not enough to construct a brand new civilization on.
>>18284428Robespierre would have gone down as the greatest leader in European history and led France into a new golden age had he not been betrayed.
>>18284359>You support the mass murder of innocent people then,The nobility and royals are not innocent people.>including numerous fucking CHILDREN, by these French psychos? What crime did the fucking kids commit?Being born into the nobility & royalty, per their "divine rights" & primogeniture ironclad standard. Thier standard, I reiterate. >What crimeWhat crime did the children and women of our ancestors, our neighbours, did that ended up being harassed, abused, raped (ius primae noctis), burnt at the stake etc. did they do? Huh? Because they weren't born into an exclusive club or society, that's why, and somehow that warrants aryaness & domination? Fuck off.>Oh wait, it was purposely to spread terror amonst the populace (which they explicitly said) right? So it's ok.Like I said, you're unable and/or unwilling to understand political history & historiography.
>>18285122Not all the people they executed were nobles.
>>18284042Do you use a plugin for AI or just copy it from the chat?
>>18284359>Oh wait, it was purposely to spread terror amonst the populace (which they explicitly said) right?Terror is the ultimate purpose of the law, meaning that he had the best laws.
>>18284001Don't talk about topics you don't know shit about.According to Marx, the father of communism, the French Revolution marked a shift in the economic base from feudalism to capitalism.And it was, the whole revolution was the overthrow of the monarchy/nobility and the rise of bourgeois power (with the help of the masses), being a key moment in the development of capitalist society.You have to understand that, back then, nobles and monarchs were rich and the ones that held power because of their titles, not because they were great investors, competent leaders or used their money wisely. They were in fact a stagnant, incompetent, self indulgent and decandent class that were keeping everyone down. The growing bourgeoi class got fed up with this bullshit backward system and rose up because they knew they’ll do a better good.>b-but they attacked the chruch and tradicional values like commies do!What if I tell you that, back then, the left and the right didn’t exist. In fact, monarchs and the chruch opposed fiercely to capitalism and industrialization. Being capitalist was the equivalent of being a current far left revolutionary. It was later, when the leftist idiology started becoming a thing, that traditionalists allied with capitalists (or bourgeois), their old enemy, forming the current right wing.
>>18284019Apparently your definition of "equality" means wanting jews to have all the wealth and power then? Because that all we got in the long run with the Revolution.You know, sucking jewish cock will not get you into the "cool kids club", right?
>>18283950Who even started this shit? The Freemasonry? Or was it a genuine uprising?
>>18286667Conservativism only makes sense if what you defend is worth conserving.Was the old regime worth of such thing? Fuck no.
>>18285636Basic manipulations, omissions, like this work for room temperature minds.I never not said that the nobility & royals had their posse to impulsively do grunt work like mindless drones oblivious to everything and anything surrounding them & their own interests.You're room temperature.
>>18284015Bolsheviks idealize it because it’s how you fucking do a successful revolution.They rose against all odds, their ideas enlighted>>18284015 everyone’s mind and absolutely destroyed the old regime forever, changing the world for the better.Did commies accompish such thing? Lel nope. They sure managed to rise in some places, but their ideas didn’t become the norm, absolutely failed to destroy capitalism and made the world worse.
>>18283950cringe, the french revolution killed europe, the old world died after that
>>18283950Asking the important questions today I see.
>>18284015>>18284042Mind you, Robespierre free pedo and criminal alike.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFmwSlmumk
>>18287294>break a few covalent bonds in 1/10 second>still make chuds seethe of rage 250 years later
>>18284001>>18284015How the fuck do you confuse liberalism with communism? Not even an american can be that retarded
The revolution was cringe because Britain had already shown that you can have a revolution without all the nonsense that France did, with great results. Britain in the 1700s was the freest, most peaceful, prosperous place in the world. But the French seemed to think you need to kill everyone and change everything entirely which was nonsense
>>18287297
>>18287539You do not have a rotten brain nor is it dead – since you never had one to begin with.
>>18287539The pattern seems clear: the longer it takes to get rid of absolutism, the more violent and radical the eventual overthrow becomes. Britain was the first to move away from absolute monarchy, and while it was relatively tame (they still had Oliver Cromwel though), the monarchy and nobility regained some power and had to accept parliamentary rule. More importantly, they became aware that their privileged status carried a responsibility, not just to live off the labor of peasants, but to care for and guide them toward a better future.France, on the other hand, took much longer to undergo this transformation. The process was far more violent and radical, largely also due to foreign intervention, but in the end, it set the country on a democratic path, which was beneficial in the long run. The French nobility, thoroughly corrupt, incompetent and indifferent to the suffering of the poor, had plunged the country into economic crisis and famine, all while indulging in excess. When the masses finally rose up, they abolished the old regime forever and embraced republicanism.Russia, however, was the last to break free from absolutism, and the revolution was by far the most extreme one. Embracing communism, it became a brutal bloodbath. And unlike France, the outcome wasn’t necessarily for the better (no shit). The aftermath brought its own set of deep, lasting issues which Russia still suffer to this day.
>>18287539>you can have a revolution without all the nonsense that France didOnly after a disastrous 10-year period of Civil War, the glorious revolution should be seen in the backdrop of the English Civil War, and played a big part in the calculations at the time.>Britain in the 1700s was the freest, most peaceful, prosperous place in the worldAbout maybe 1% of the population could vote at the time, so maybe we should be a bit more apprehensive about the freedom enjoyed in 1700s Britain, also I'd imagine the repressed Irish and the still active Jacobite rebels would dispute the peaceful and prosperous claim.
>>18283950The initial revolution and killing the adult monarchs were necessary, and the latter became needed only because other, invading nations were trying to reinstall the monarchs to oppress the people once again. Killing the monarchs undercut those invasions because the nations couldn't agree on who to then have oppress the people and each wanted the new pick to funnel the nation's wealth to their nation. However, the Jacobin decision to eventually start killing people as a first resort even without confirming intentions and allegiances was a terribe decision.
>>18283950cringe and gay
>>18286612>zero replies after 2 daysBAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA NIGGER!!!
Didn't go far enough
>>18286661educated middle class liberals who wanted to be meritocratic
>>18283950It started off based but quickly became cringe, and then gigacringe. It was eventually so extremely cringe that Napoleon just walked in and was like "Okay the cringe is over now, I'm charge" and they just accepted it because he ended the cringe.
>>18289623Not that anon, but you are mixing complete different contexts. The Revolution at that time didn't have such idea in mind. Their idea was actually a nationalistic French Republic that would govern for the good and glory of the French citizen, which on paper is way better than a selfish and incompetent autocrat. Nothing to do with the current financial power globohomo we live today.>but it's their faultNope. The current neoliberal world where every nation is slave of capital is the result of facism defeat and the fall of communism.Blaming the French revolution is like blaming Oliver Cromwel for the current state of England.
>>18289635What was their main motive?
>>18287906>The pattern seems clear: the longer it takes to get rid of absolutism, the more violent and radical the eventual overthrow becomes.Like a balloon and something bad happens
>>18283950Cringe lunatic, the Kim Il-Sung of the 18th century. Thankfully he got ack'd and we got Napoleonic kino instead.
