/lit/ - Literature

Rousseau = Marx
Robespierre = Lenin
Citizen = Comrade
Antonelle = Trotsky
Jacobin = Bolshevik
Conspiracy of Equals = Chernoe Znamia
Reign of Terror = Red Terror
Bonaparte = Stalin
Fouché = Beria

>>4695006
Hahahaha so accurate

Which one?
This revolution >>4694999 and this revolution >>4695006 are not one in the same.

The important thing about the French Revolution is that it set into motion a spirit of activism on the part of the French people. This spirit flared into life several more times over the next two hundred years, and though each time in itself didn't amount to much, collectively they gave us the France we have today, one of the better countries in the world for living standards.

So you can say in a broad sense that the French Revolution was successful, though not in its own time.

>>4695021
French one, he's just comparing it to the soviet revolution, and thought it was kind of funny, because there are always corrupted people everywhere and by the fact that there was no revolution that came from the people without someone trying to raise their names above it

>>4695035
French people really know how to protest

>>4695058
Maybe not, but they sure know how to surrender.

>>4695035
Discipline and Punish shows several examples of French peasants not irregularly attacked executions and rioted over unjust convictions (and acquittals, like in the case of a nobleman who was given acquitted on grounds of madness for strangling a pastor to death). So I wouldn't say it started with the Revolution

>>4695065
The government, maybe. The resistance was pretty big.

>>4695006
>Bonaparte = Stalin

just leave

>>4695084
Bloody garlic eating surrender monkeys can't even surrender properly.

>>4695039

Eh, you dont get it. There are multiple french revolutions. The one depicted in the OP is different from the one of begun in 1789.

>>4695094
I actually thought it was brilliant until I saw that.

Enlightenment and liberalism set mankind on a bright and glorious future.

Then of course state socialists and other filthy collectivists had to come along and ruin things for everybody.

>>4695304
The politics of resentment were used as a tool to subvert and replace the original power structure, nothing more.

>>4695304
>Enlightenment and liberalism
It certainly got some nice books written with comforting futures envisioned in them

>>4695304
It just cut the head off the king and left the aristocracy in place
Doesn't matter how many heads you cut off, if you don't tame or put down the beast, it will always convert fresh new aristocratic sociopaths

>>4695304
Roseau overtly favored the abolition of private property. Babeuf's school of thought was the first to be called "communist".

>>4694999
>bump everything you know about it
It ended in 1968

>>4695094
>brought back slavery with a vengenace
>had Fouche heading his secret police
>according the memoirs of his sectary, had all sorts of people executed for publishing works criticizing him
>created a cult of personality that would never be equaled until the Stalinists

>>4695671
>many thought he "betrayed" leftism, such as Beethoven
>his name itself became an "ist"

>>4695039
>tfw you don't know that there were multiple French revoluitons

>revolution of 1789 was not about getting rid of the king or abolishing the monarchy, which was considered radical/extremist at the time, but about forcing a transition into a constitutional monarchy

>>4695907
Yea, i didnt know that

>>4695907
>he doesn't know about Louis Napoleon's failed coup attempt

"Pueple de France, le tribunal c'est vous" is this phrase correct? And who said it?

>>4696153
Peuple*

And I don't know where it is from.

Hugo drops much wisdom in Les Miserables. If you're ever in the mood for some good historical fiction from a sympathetic author, check it out.

Unabridged of course.

>>4694999

>>4694999
A constitution made for all is made for none.

The only good thing about the GFR is the metric system.

>>4696173
Is it a musical?

>>4696437

Yeah man, watch that or read the Sparknotes translation.

any good books on the french revolution?

>>4696223
>A constitution made for all is made for none.
that is the most retarded thing i've come across
a constitution, no matter which regime it promotes, must apply to all, dimwit.

Basically, it was a big episode in the story of the Great Apostasy from the Church. It was incited by a group of conspirators who galvanized the masses through propaganda and sloganeering ("Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"). It's intent on a natural level was to overthrow the old Catholic aristocracy of Europe and replace it with the liberal, industrialist Bourgeoisie, which leads into the socialist/communist revolutions where a tyrannical World Government will be formed. This guy >>4695304 is blind and misguided in thinking that the communists usurped the liberal cause; no, the liberals and the Communists are the same people, and the liberal democratic republics are a stepping stone to the tyrannical socialist super-states.
On a supernatural level, it's the great deception where many souls are to be lead astray by the sheer amount of lies, false creeds, false prophecies that are spread everywhere. In that sense, the leader of "The Revolution" (and the French and American and Bolshevik and Chinese Revolutions and the "Civil Rights Movement" in the US are all part of the same Revolution) has always been Satan.

>>4696650
>"apply" and "made for" mean the same thing

>>4696650
The French one was for all Man.

Remember the time Louis XVI carried around a copy of the ratified 1791 Constitution in his pocket so he could passively aggressively consult it on a daily basis in an effort to show how crappy the Constitution was (and to be fair, it was a mess)

good ol Louis

>>4697062
unless you were poor
or not white
or uneducated

>During the very first storms of the revolution, the French bourgeoisie dared to take away from the workers the right of association but just acquired. By a decree of June 14, 1791, they declared all coalition of the workers as “an attempt against liberty and the declaration of the rights of man,” punishable by a fine of 500 livres, together with deprivation of the rights of an active citizen for one year. [6] This law which, by means of State compulsion, confined the struggle between capital and labour within limits comfortable for capital, has outlived revolutions and changes of dynasties. Even the Reign of Terror left it untouched. It was but quite recently struck out of the Penal Code. Nothing is more characteristic than the pretext for this bourgeois coup d’état. “Granting,” says Chapelier, the reporter of the Select Committee on this law, “that wages ought to be a little higher than they are, ... that they ought to be high enough for him that receives them, to be free from that state of absolute dependence due to the want of the necessaries of life, and which is almost that of slavery,” yet the workers must not be allowed to come to any understanding about their own interests, nor to act in common and thereby lessen their “absolute dependence, which is almost that of slavery;” because, forsooth, in doing this they injure “the freedom of their cidevant masters, the present entrepreneurs,” and because a coalition against the despotism of the quondam masters of the corporations is — guess what! — is a restoration of the corporations abolished by the French constitution.

footnote 6:
>Article I. of this law runs: As the abolition of any form of association between citizens of the same estate and profession is one of the foundations of the French constitution, it is forbidden to re-establish them under any pretext or in any form, whatever they might be.
Article IV. declares, that if "citizens belonging to the same profession, craft or trade have joint discussions and make joint decisions with the intention of refusing together to perform their trade or insisting together on providing the services of their trade or their labours only at a particular price, then the said deliberations and agreements ... shall be declared unconstitutional, derogatory to liberty and the declaration of the rights of man, etc."

>>4695094
It's actually pretty similar.

Napoleon reversed many of the progressive measures of the revolution, and so did Stalin (abortion, sodomy laws, NEP, etc) and then there's the militaristic role they've both had

>>4695407
Rosseau's theories have more in common with fascism than socialism.

>>4695678
what now nigga

>>4697252
>1789
>Non-white people in France

Yeah, how unfair for all three of them

>>4697304
the awkward moment when you think they went through all the trouble of reestablishing basic rights for black people in France (and abolishing the policy of sending black people out of the country if they weren't born in France, which wasn't heavily enforced, anyway) for a handful of people

the awkward moment when you don't history

>>4695304
People who support liberalism today are essentially the same people who in the past thought Republicanism was a "failed experiment" that leads to tyranny (and used Cromwell/Robespierre as evidence for that) that monarchy was meritocratic because someone way back in their family tree was a mere pleb who worked hard, that slavery was just because the bible said so, etc.

>>4695407
>Babeuf's school of thought was the first to be called "communist".
Really? What about the levellers?

>>4697252
Nah, it was across the board for all races, that's why slavery was abolished. There was also a strong struggle between the left and far-left concerning the poor and uneducated, there was even an element for women; different people fought for their own reasons; either way is all it came to was a paranoid police state.

You guys seem to know this stuff?, my question, or rather rambling is this:

After the revolution and after Napoleon, when the bourbon king was restored, what was the atmosphere like? What did people think? How can you go from revolution?, to dictator/emperor and empire, to a king again? Do you understand what im trying to get at? What did the people that lived through those 2 events think?

Also, could someone go more in depth into the revolution of 1830 and the one of 1870? Where they in the spirit of the 1789 one?

Any good books that would interest me?

The US might have had a revolution for the wealthy landowning colonial aristocracy, but the french atleast tried it for all.

>>4697304
you best be trollin

>>4697338
They were never called communist afaik, regardless of whether or not they were.

>>4697934
that's not the writer though it's his loser dad

>>4697969
>implying i wouldnt know that
>implying he didnt provide him with most of the inspiration for monte christo and other stories

>>4697978
>you only knew he was black because of django unchained

>>4697934
As I said, French citizens of non caucasian origin represented a neglictible number, demographicaly, compared to the 19th and 20th century, or even America at this time.

>>4697992
so you saying kanye was wrong
there weren't no niggers in paris

>>4697986
Il descendait peut être du singe, mais vous Monsieur, vous êtes en train d'y remonter.

>implying
and he was not black but metis

>"let them eat cake"
>really rich people get guillotined
>rich people get guillotined
>anyone gets guillotined
>Napoleon takes over

>>4697986
>projecting

>>4697992
Just to contradict myself with a counter-example, le Chevalier de Saint-George, aka Black Mozart

>>4698005
still true

>>4698008
>black
dream on

>>4698020
?

>>4698022
clearly not black in that picture

>>4697997
>using "let them eat cake" in a history thread

>>4696678
You had me until Civil Rights Movement.

>>4698025
>picture

You should stop commenting.
And you could have wikipediaed the shit out of his name to get info, you dumb fuck.

>>4697996
>Il descendait peut être du singe, mais vous Monsieur, vous êtes en train d'y remonter.

Oh shit nigger >>4697986 you got fuckin jacked

>>4697287
What the fuck am I reading.

>>4698020
He is a halfbreed like Obama.

>>4698129
Just quoting Dumas himself when his origins were subject to unpleasant commentaries

>>4698129
Plenty of people knew that, Anon, it's in numerous prefaces to works by Dumas.

>>4698169
>>4698187

Oh...that's embarrassing

I thought he was responding in French to show that he was very knowledgeable about the language in general and the other poster had been far off assuming he only knew because of a Tarantino movie.

shit

The beginning of the end.

>>4697928

> the one of 1870

Definitely. Marx thought that the Paris Commune was the blueprint for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Dinna ken about 1830.

>>4698201
I don't agree with this quote but that's an interesting perspective. Is he worth reading?

>>4698255
Lenin, however, didn't, noting critically that they lacked a vanguard party and a secret police.

>>4698257
He's basically just espousing the notion of separation of powers, and he's totally right in that sense.

The French Revolution has become so simplified in distorted that now it serves as little more than a political polemic. The Jacobins are perhaps the best example of this, commonly seen as a super egalitarian communist/socialist whatever instead of a group with deep rifts that ranged from support for monarchy, constitutional monarchy, republic/anti-republic, defense of men of property, dislike of communes, etc. Its funny to read Burke criticizing the revolution when people in France at the same time are bemoaning that little of the changes Burke is critical of are actually happening.

>>4698331
Adding to this it should be no surprise that Napoleon was able to step in and become Emperor because the changes to France were not as great as they were hyped up to be.

Do you guys think that power can corrupt?