Since the "french" are at it again apparently, what was the first revolution really like and about? I know we've all heard the romanticized version of it, being of the poor masses defeating a singular evil tyrant and bringing in the age of enlightenment and so on and so forth; but when it comes down to it, was it anything else other than maybe the only middle class revolution in history?I know leftists have mangled it into being some sort of proletarian revolt, even though marx himself would've said it's simply the bourgeois taking over from the landed aristocrats; but what really were the players and such in it?Any good readings, videos or channels on the topic?
>>18746432>only middle class revolutionI thought a lot of them were like this around this period
>>18746470Now that you mention it, i think you're right; although i'd say later on.The american revolution, from what i've read, seems mostly to be a disgruntled colonial elite wanting more independence and the later 1848 revolutions and similar is the most similar to the first french ones.
>>18746432>What was the french revolution about, really?
>>18746489Good point. I was wondering about the American one. 1848 seems more right since you have strong liberal as well as some socialist elements
>>18746432France is just an unstable country that collapses every 20-30 years. Does there need to be a specific reason?
>>18746493What was the jewish involvement really like? I don't like unfounded conspiratorialism, but did any of them play a part and if so what?
>>18746501I mean, i'd say there's a fair amount of big differences between the different coups, revolutions, troubles and so on. To generalize it so broadly is just something i don't really find that satisfying.
>>18746432It was a plot by one faction of elites to displace the incumbent faction of elites. It got out of hand. Then Napoleon took advantage of the situation, etc etc.
>>18746493the jacobins literally outlawed guilds
the bourgeousie were the cucks, and the aristocracy the bulls.
>>18746719What exactly were the jacobins anyways? just a kinda trotskyist equivalent?
>>18746489American rev is an anomaly, led by conservative estate owners.>>18746432Revolt led by bourgeoisie against the nobility during a time of bankruptcy and famine. Important to distinguish between bourgeoisie and the sang-culottes (the urban lower class)
Phase 1 is united opposition against the enlightened centralisation of the French state that began in the 17th century. The task of modernising the French state meant "harmonising": laws so that the same justice applied equally across France; the tax code, so people paid the same proportionally; trade and tariff laws etc.This process infuriated the nobility because they had super special privileges given to them 500 years ago meaning they don't pay tax actually and can administer justice themselves ;^) also my estate is next to HRE and we trade so tariffs are bad (wait but MY estate is central and so tariffs are good!) The state was practically bankrupt and Louis was trying to drag France into the current year. Sadly he was not Joseph II, and didn't have a Richelieu either. Necker was a financial genius but not a political super-heavyweight. So Louis, again doing the magnanimous thing being a modern enlightened ruler decides to convene the Estates General and all of these parochial and self-interested objections come flooding in. You know what happens next...Phase 2: an alliance of grasping, backstabbing nobles break off into the third estate, seething "noooo muh privileges! This is like... tyranny?" Meanwhile the only allies in the nobility also turn and run to England or Austria like cowards leaving Louis with no political base. The revolution has won hooray! Now let's have a liberal constitutional monarchy like the English syst---aackkkkk The floodgates are open.. the king is effectively powerless so now what is there to unite over anymore? It's about what comes next... so a tiny, ruthless, fringe takes over the revolution and uses mobs to purge its political rivals. The most zealous and insane are the only ones capable of winning this power struggle. Then the reality sinks in... Hmmmm indeed the state is bankrupt, indeed we do need to centralise and modernise as Louis was doing... So make up some post hoc revolutionary justification.
>>18746432The French Revolution at its core was against the feudalist/monarchist order, respectively against the sole & exclusive right(s) of the firstborn. The first-born inherited everything, while the second-born, the third-born, the fourth-born, the fifth-born... the xyz-born inherited the dust (zilch, nada, nothing). The first-borns/heirs being overwhelmed by the nth-borns/spares. This was the quintessence of the French Revolution; the overhaul of the old world order of absolutism/feudalism/monarchism.Old World Order = Feudalism/Monarchy/Absolutism/“proto”-Socialism/“proto”-CommunismNew World Order = RepublicanismThe first, or among the first, schism during the Revolution was about the royalty, the royal family. With the exception of the Jacobin Club (Montagnards), some fluctuant Jacobin subfactions members & some weary neutrals or “Plains”, almost all factions & subfactions of the Assembly wanted to either exile the royal family (Danger #1) or turn the motif (s) of the Revolution in turning the polity into a “constitutional” monarchy (Danger #2). Danger #1 – if they exile the royal family, they gave the exiles and all other monarchies what they wanted in order to wage war against the Republic. Danger #2 – if they become a “constitutional” republic, they essentially repeat the same error, same mistakes, like the English did with Charles II Stewart & the Hanoverians. In which, any gains would be gnawed out of existence. They went for Danger #2, much to the horror of the Jacobins & other [non-Jacobin affiliated] republicans. The Republic wasn't yet a full republic, if you follow the chronology. Betrayals later, a war ongoing outside and inside, the threat of literal genocide against Paris & other revolutionary cities (Brunswick manifesto), the royal family itself hostile, a failed royalist counter-coup & failed escape by the royal clan – the Jacobins had all the proofs against monarchism, and for the republic.
>>18746432>>18747974(cont.)After the Revolutionary Wars (including Napoleon, he was a Jacobin as well, making a mockery of the old system in front of all to see & understand), after 1815, the monarchies regrouped. What followed were 99 years of backwardness & darkness for the continent (with limited meagre exceptions during intervals), which culminated with WWI. “Constitutional” monarchies are still monarchies, Anon. Remember.The reason you have the mess in Europe is because one core or several factors: (1)-The “constitutional” monarchies in Europe are conspiring between themselves to undermine republicanism & literally turn back time to feudalism; ante-1789. The Cold War was the equivalent of the so-called peace between 1814/1815 and 1914. Remember; socialism & communism are inventions by nobility/royalty to undermine & preempt the republicans from gaining power during revolutions. The communist revolution(s) in the 20th century in Europe were covertly supported by the feudalists. The bolsheviks were the ciphers of (primarily) the junkers/nobilities of central, central-north, Europe. The rest were from other primogeniturists. (2)-Foreign monarchies (absolutist/feudal ones) that found linkage & kindred with the “constitutionalists”, and help them any way they can (energy crises conspiracies, covert/overt financing, asymmetrical guerrilla warfare/terrorism...). Look at the EU's leadership past 15-25 years; a mixup of “ex-”communists from republics & [high] nobility. Who do you have at the EU leadership? The uradel/hochadel, junkers. Primogeniturists, absolutists. What does that tell you?!? The ruzzians are in on this or else how do you explain the presence, generous friendships & family resorts, of the cekist tsar, his family, and the rest of the ruzzians residing in monarchies (Monaco, Benelux, British countryside, Arabian resort coastline, Swiss residences with neighbours of the nobility & deposed royalty)?
It was a revolution of yellow races against the white race.
>>18746432>what was the first revolution really like and about?The first one, the one with the tennis court oath?It was about attaining Bourgeois political representation in a constitutional monarchy that was effectively already under total bourgeois management and carried by bourgeois credit, with the new system being less feudal and more enlightened.>but what really were the players and such in it?The bulk of them were middle-class lawyers and lower and middle class priests, with some of the nobility (like Philippe Egalite) who were Freemasons and sympathetic to liberal ideas. The Jacobin Club and the revolutionary war eventually organized and invigorated the lower class far enough for it to start a second coup.
>>18746432>>18747974>>18748017Europe must turn republican to end all of this. Not socialism, not communism, not fuckin' “democracy” with the primogeniturists & deposed royals taking control by covert means by mixing up foreign ciphers/elements, not a caliphate (you're in this mess because of that old dam in the south of Arabia), no – full-fledged uncompromising republicanism, exactly how the Jacobins foresaw as advancing humanity. No more royalty, no more primogeniturisms, no more ancient/high/red nobilities, no more conspiracies to turnover the republican new world order – none of that.Blame Clovis, blame Merovech, blame the invading barbarians that conspired with the huns & sassanids/parthians to destroy the Roman polity by coordinated flank invasions, blame the the Edessan/Osroene/Adiabene satrapy (kingdomlets) royals for the cause of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple on behalf of the king of kings Vologases within the wider Roman-Persian wars. Blame your “ancestral” first noble/royal/pharaonic bloodkin that couldn't abstain from having more than one offspring inheritor & more than one bored wife to fuck – that's the reason you're assmad furious republicanism exists in the first place. Boo-hoo; not the fault of the spares, not the fault of the masses (who you so affectionately refer to as “useless eaters” or and “biomass”), but yours' primordial noble/royal/pharaonic/chieftain first dick & cunt that didn't bothered to think of the consequences. Tous les hommes naissent egaux, toutes les femmes naissent egales — nous naissons tous profanes.
> What was the french revolution about, really?Freemasons and Jews. King Loui XIII was actually giving land and lowering taxes to the peasants, and the Jews and Freemasons did not like that.
>>18746432they ran out of money and couldnt do welfare anymore. Once the ball got moving on reform it opened the door to the other stuff. French bankroll american independence and run out of money. Can't afford shit. King plays along with 'the rules' (big mistake) and calls for tax reform. All he had to do was confiscate some estates. Carlyle's book on it is amazing and everyone should read it. In the very first chapter he lays out what the king should have done, same thing his dad did, hang some peasants and aristocrats at the start of the noise.
>>18749970>Carlyle's bookwhich one?
>>18746432The French Revolution was the single biggest mistake in human history.
>>18746432Absolutely bullshit, Western European Protestants and Enlightenment revolutionaries invented mass destruction of old artifacts and architecture for pure nihilism during the Protestant Reformation (dissolution of the monasteries, French wars of religion, thirty years war) and French revolution.https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18414604/#q18415997>>18415997https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18532842/#q18532846>>18532846See this thread on the sheer damage the French did to Spanish heritage.https://twitter.com/IberianSpirit/status/1515432962631909383https://twitter.com/AdLucem7/status/1515480892998885378
>>18746489>The american revolution, from what i've read, seems mostly to be a disgruntled colonial elite wanting more independence and the later 1848 revolutions and similar is the most similar to the first french ones.Well they were inspired by radical liberal ideas, but they had grown economically powerful in the colonies while also being distant from England. They were also land speculators while England wanted to keep them bottled up to prevent a major Indian war from breaking out while also raising taxes on them to pay for debts that stacked up during the Seven Years War.I think the Texas revolution is also comparable to the 1848 revolutions. It was happening around the same time as uprisings that were going on in Poland. The Texans were Anglo settlers who moved into a Mexican province, while Mexico after independence reversed in the direction of centralism with a Catholic state religion. Mexico was divided 50/50 between federalists and centralists which made it unstable. The federalists wanting to model the state on the U.S. while the centralists wanted independence but to keep the political system as a traditional European conservative Catholic state.
>>18746432you really cant overstate the incompetence of monarchs. Somehow someway it was going to collapse. they just kept getting worse.
>>18747408>conservative estate owners.conservative how?
>>18746432...what shit education system did you attend?I attended public schools in NY and we were literally taught that it was a Middle Class revolution of lawyers and educated people and that the peasant revolt angle is not accurate. This wasn't a fancy school either, just some chump public school in the Albany area
>>18751136There was a peasant revolt, the sans cullotes were hanging nobles in the streets, think of them as the SA. When that faction outlived its usefulness Robespierre and Danton had them removed, then Robespierre removed Danton, then he didnt have any allies left and was removed by the middle-class
