He seems like a proto-communist, but would he be someone who should have succeeded in his goals?
Honest question, did this guy do anything wrong?
Other urls found in this thread:
He was so violent he got himself killed and the movement snuffed out in the reaction, for starters.
I hate this distinction so much.
Anyways tell me how he wasn't but in any case not really, to this day he still causes liberals more asshurt than Hitler does.
He's hella based, easily the most based french to have existed. He's the type of guy who I'd love to have a 30cm bust of in my desk, you know what I'm saying?
For firebrand dictators, what's the tipping point of killing too many of your own party to stay in power, versus not killing enough to avoid being couped?
Jacques Hébert called for a dictatorship of the sans-culottes
No clue what that is
The tipping point is being a dictator who needs to kill any of your own people to stay in power.
Literally means those without breeches (leg coverings), it was used to describe the common man (who mostly wore pants).
And who was Jacques? I don't know that much about the French Revolution tbh.
Leader of the left tendency of the Jacobins, wanting to purge France of the clergy and merchant class on-top of the nobility.
How is he related to Robespierre? Were they allies?
He was part of the same collation party (La Montagne) that Robespierre was the head of.
Lol no, he was actually a moderate among the revolutionary factions, he could only be described as slightly socdem.
He was no fan of aristocrats and powerful merchants, but not an enemy of money systems. He was to the left of Thomas Paine and to the right of communism. I would classify him as a revolutionary social democrat.
the Clergy can only act as a class if engaging in profiteering.
Profiteering is a Prot tactic
also, no mention of Rousseau, my favorite?
lmao you're a fucking imbecile
He was definitely revolutionary. Communism hadn't really been well formed at that point. You had Thomas Munzter, Gerrard Winstanley and The Paris Commune preceding Robespierre. Robespierre was obviously influenced by them, but the Jacobins were well aware of counter revolutionary factions and influential philanthropists like Edmund Burke thus they tried to stamp out tyranny being mindful of turmoil in the National Assembly and Committee of Public Safety. So reading On Substinence you get distinct impression he wanted to destroy the aristocracy, but without introducing a system without capital. The Festival of the Supreme Being reveals he knew the tyrannical effects the countries clergy had. He was an interesting case, and can't be compared to western liberal factionalists. Understanding Robespierre is like understanding Max Stirner.. You simply can't get the full picture without an understanding of their cultural backgrounds.
That's Babeuf you silly dunce
Well.. The same time I mean. I was referring to the first iteration and the revolutionary government after the storming of Bastille. Not the later collective.
What a cringey "demonstrate erudition!" reaction to being called an imbecile. How about you learn what social-democracy first, you fucking retard?
Again, you're an imbecile.
Nice intellectual dick measuring and all, but please educate us on why Robespierre wouldn't fall under the category of social democrat? Is there any room for doubt reading through his speeches and positions?
Babeuf > Max "everyone who isn't a Jacobin is an Austrian counter-revolutionary" Robespierre
Sorel changed that game. trve kvlt Socialist Anarchism
I appreciate Robespierre's position on not leaving the door open for tyranny (his excuse for the violent crackdown on counter revolutionaries). However, a society transitioning from tyranny should allow for brutal self criticism and political dissent (some how some way without a reaction) lest it be called tyranny throwing the cause and motives into question.
"Hébert was skeptical of the queen's willingness to do so and often characterized her as an evil enemy of the people by referring to Marie Antoinette as "Madame Veto" and even addressing Louis XVI as "drunken and lazy; a cuckolded pig""
Killed too many of people on his side for minor offenses, didn't kill enough nobility and merchants.
Robespierre 150 years later would have fucking caused a european wide revolution
Rousseau was more important on a social scale. The Bataille of his day.
Obviously he wasn't a Communist but neither was Washington/Lincoln the Octoberists the KMT Cromwell etc
One must understand that during the period of Robespierre and those of the others mentioned Liberalism and with it capitalism WAS a genuinely progressive and emancipating force in the eyes of most peasants/Proles and was seen as a much better alternative to the feudalism they lived under