Redpill me on Robespierre

I want to be red pilled on Robespierre. Was he as bad as bougie "historians" make him out to be

Attached: Screenshot_20190126-014613_Gallery.jpg (1080x662, 409.76K)

Other urls found in this thread:

no he was unironically redpilled and based

also interested, will some generous french revolution effortposter pls grace us with the knowledge, my only familiarity with the french revolution is thru Black Jacobins

Basically Robespierre, or, as I like to call him, RoboGuillotine 5000, went on a killing spree against the bourgeoisie and they've been slandering him ever since.

republican gang gang gang

Unironically the Incorruptible.

Attached: 1507516506597.jpg (750x537, 86.41K)

Idealist bourgeois, but /ourguy/, like Marat.

He was cool from a revolutionary perspective but his ego could have been knocked down a few pegs.

Attached: 1548168773163.jpg (800x640, 107.5K)

The only good Liberal (well him and the other Jacobins).

No, most of the French political leadership was implicated in the Terror. When Robespierre began cracking down on the worst offenders of the Terror, they extreme Left sided with the center Right and overthrew the Committee. To absolve themselves of their own guilt, and to avoid getting guillotined in the White Terror that followed, the Terror politicians just placed the blame on Robespierre.

Robespierre himself was against the death penalty, but pragmatically believed in its necessity for stemming the tide of counterrevolution and affirming the republic.

Cult of Reason >>> Cult of the Meme Being

Robespierre the Incorruptible.

He dropped the most fire album of 1789.

He was a SocDem before there were SocDem:
- guillotined the Left (Hebertists), and got guillotined by the Right
- attempted to collaborate with the rich, while defending the interests of the poor
- tried to regulate economy, while preserving private property
- tried abolishing religion by replacing it with another religion

No idea what fuck this supposed to mean.

Attached: vodka.png (768x768, 447.61K)

OP here

I meant the historians who say Stalin killed all of Russian population.

Zizek regularly claims he isn't. The execution rates of his regime apparently weren't anything extraordinary compared to the years around it. Can't verify this though.

Robespierre was the fall guy for it all even though the Committee of Public Safety was like a dozen other dudes. Literally the only ones who didn't become opportunists and abandon ship were Robespierre, Saint-Just, and Couthon. Even the radical Collot d'Herbois turned out to be a snake that turned the moment he feared for his life.

All in all, Robespierre got the shit-end of the deal who doesn't deserve half of the accusations against him.

Isn't he the father of the modern liberal state? Why would bougie historians hate him?

He took liberalism too seriously. Actually believed in its ideals. Bougies don't like that.

They don't like him because he killed people. Killing can never be good

The bourgeoisie would like to believe that their rule is the natural state of man. The fact that it took a lot of blood to establish that rule is a fact that is inconvenient for them. That is why they dislike Robespierre, it reminds them of the fact that the liberal order was founded through violence and can also be ended through violence.

There are plenty of historical figures that killed a lot of people.

I'm making the bougie argument

one of the most based mad lad of the time. Was the favorite of the people, and prolly one of its only true supporter among the bourgie that made the revolution, but had no real party or power structure behind him, which is why he eventually went down and got all shit pinned on him.
dunno if he is available in english, but Henri Guillemin is a great historian if you wanna know more about Robespierre and the revolution from a communist perspective.

L'incorruptible est /notregars/ sans le moindre doute
The incorruptible is /ourguy/ without a doubt

also this tbh

No. Why would you think this? He was the one who guillotined French Liberals (Girondins). If he was father of any type of state, it would be the one we can see in Venezuela (or Scandinavia a few decades ago; it is going neo-lib now).

Definitely Venezuela, since iirc they tried price controls, which failed like usual.