Was the French Revolution good or bad?

I was watching a debate on Napoleon if he should be considered Great or not, but it sort of delved into an argument about whether or not the French Revolution was good or not to some degree which was very interesting.

[video=youtube;bxQ4TcTcPbI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQ4TcTcPbI&index=3&list=PLcT8An_pbHPHqgF9QOTA_Wgj oxDImfEZh[/video]

Than I noticed something else interesting, the one arguing against the Revolution seemed to be more conservative in his political stance and the one defending the Revolution seemed far more liberal, im very curious as to if this is true and Conservatives are against the Revolution or not. I personally loved the Revolution, of course not every piece of it but all in all I see it as something that was key not only to development of the world but especially America. This shouldnt be surprising though because the left/right spectrum actually came about during this time in France, this is literally where the divide between liberals and conservatives began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
"The next stage was dominated by struggles between various liberal assemblies and right-wing supporters of the monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms."
As you can see, it was a struggle between liberals and right wingers. Yes liberals at this time were more libertarian of course but not entirely, Social Liberalism was also beginning to spread at this time and it eventually became dominant among liberals. Communists also look to the Revolution as a great thing that happened, "The Jacobin cause was picked up by Marxists in the mid-19th century, and became an element of Communist thought around the world, especially in the Soviet Union. "Gracchus" Babeuf became a special hero.[183]"

So, left wingers and right wingers, what are your views of this mighty Revolution?

 

The French Revolution was brought about by poverty.

 

Yes, and that poverty was brought about by rich conservatives refusing to pay taxes while still over indulging in epic proportions.


Sound familiar?

 

Depends on which end of the axe one was on...

 

Guillotine*

 

The conservative argument isn't that the status quo was preferable, but that reform is preferable to revolution. Revolutions can succeed and lead to to a free and stable society, but they can also be hijacked by murderous people who will turn the country upside down and reign with terror. As with the french revolution, it started well. There was equality under the law, economic freedom, freedom of religion and speech. That's nice. But then the revolution got crazy, started its reign of terror, got rid of those freedoms, and aimed at not only making people equal, but to turn the entire society upside down. They made a new atheistic religion, they became anti religious and anti catholic. They even got a new calendar. Society should be made anew, and everything old is oppressive and should be gotten rid of. etc.

Then obviously, it wasn't a very good thing to throw all of europe into bloody wars. But well, europeans would probably have found some other reason to fight if not for the revolution.

 

Conservatives were not in favor of reform at all, thats what lead to the revolution in the first place. For example, FDR made reforms and averted a Communist Revolution. The Ancien Regime I believe it was called refused to make reforms, so there was a revolution. Same for the last Russian Tzar (excluding Putin). Other countries nearby saw this and got scared so they made reforms INSTEAD of having a revolution, thats simply the way things work. So no, again, the conservatives were not intent on making reforms otherwise none of this would have even happened. Its in their very name to conserve the system in place.

You must also keep in mind the "reign of terror" did not begin until pretty much all of Europe declared war on France, it was not France who declared on them, we both know under dire circumstances like that things change and constitutional rights get suspended, every country does it so dont play like they were just evil people who hijacked the Revolution. Yes, of course revolutions can be hijacked but its not an excuse for no revolution at all, you are Swedish but here in America we were literally founded on Revolution and we are not so opposed to the idea as maybe the Swedish are. Also, there is no such thing as an "atheistic religion" lol, if atheists get together in a group like that and make rules its just a group/party/government, its not a "religion" because they are by definition not religious.

 

A Revolution is a change of system, institutional system, so it can be also reactionary [Fascism wasn't a "revolution" in Italy, in the proper sense, simply because the King remained there, otherwise Fascism was a Revolution].

This said, I'm conservative and I think that the French Revolution was not only good, but necessary [French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, first of all and despite what leftist historiography teaches].

 

I wouldn't expect you to know the philosophy of conservatism, but let me enlighten you: The most basic tenet of conservatism is: "Change, in order to conserve". Let me also point out that aristocrats =/= conservatives. Conservatism is an ideology, which was beginning to evolve at this time, mostly in response to the french revolution. It thus goes without saying that Louis and the french aristocrats were not conservatives in the ideological sense.

That's why I said that revolutions can succeed. The american one obviously did. The french didn't succeed to the same extent, because it was hijacked by people who wanted to completely remake society. Yes, there was an atheistic religion, called the "cult of reason". The french revolutionaries intended to replace traditional religions with the worship of reason. They even built temples. It was one of the things they did in their effort to make a whole new society. Another thing would be the republican calendar. Therein lies a great difference between the american and french revolutions: The american revolution was about preserving english liberties against the tyranny of the crown, whilst the french revolution came to be more about building a new society. The latter is doomed to fail. The soviets also tried that.

 

Yes, the Soviets also tried it and what developed with that was a reign of terror by the Soviet Union where tens of millions of people were slaughtered-- up and until Ronnie Reagan put a stop to that. We also see people on the socialist left here in America like the OWS gang of thugs and this latest group of disenchanted blacks led by a disenchanted scumbag al sharpless trying to upset the American society with their protests and criminal activities which may in the end form a revolution of sorts right here in America. Throw in the socialist Obama's free govt goodies and its quite obvious that a civil war is likely to happen in the near future.

 

Indeed. Nice seeing you again here libhater. You haven't been very active now for a while have you? Atleast, I haven't seen much of you for quite a while.

 

The Conservatives of the time were appalled by the French Revolution. It was the overthrow of the Ancient Regime, of the established order, of course conservatives hated it.

Now was it a good thing or not is an entirely different question. For many it was the worst thing in the world, for others it changed their lives in very positive ways. The one thing that it was, was inevitable and for the same reasons that the later Russian Revolution was. Those in power came to believe that the lower classes, those that tilled the fields and made the goods, could be abused and treated with the utmost disdain. That the only class that mattered were the Aristocracy and everyone else existed only for the pleasure and use of that aristocracy. It happened in France because those attitudes of the Aristocracy about the rest of the population were the most extreme.

The overall effects of the French Revolution fundamentally changed Western Europe and in many ways led to rise of the dictatorships of Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Lenin and Stalin of the 20th century. It ended the last real vestiges of feudalism and eventually the real effective power of the landed aristocracy of Europe. The effects of the French Revolution are as profound as the fall of the Roman Empire on Western civilization.

 

Yet another thread founded on the hilariously ignorant "conservative as ideology" fallacy. "Conservative" has no absolute meaning outside of temporal context. People who were/are against the French Revolution, or more specifically the excesses of it, were/are... people who were/are against aspects of the French Revolution... the end...not as a function of some innate, immutable "conservatism" or lack of it.

Anyone who tries to achieve historical understanding by starting with entirely context-dependent labels and working backwards from there will shortchange themselves intellectually and reach no meaningful understanding. Certain labels have meaning independent of context, "monarchist," "humanist," "individualist," and "statist" are examples. "Conservative" has no absolute meaning, only relative or contextual, can shift on a dime, and moreover is highly specific, not mutually exclusive with other simultaneously held "liberal" or "unconservative" attitudes. To contrast, a monarchist will generally believe a monarchy or king is the proper seat of political power... REGARDLESS OF TIME OR CONTEXT. A humanist will believe in human as opposed to ecclesiastic power...REGARDLESS OF TIME OR CONTEXT. An individualist will generally be mutually exclusive with a statist... REGARDLESS OF TIME OR CONTEXT.

Nebulous shorthand terms like "conservative" and "liberal" are useful in the NOW only, as applied to particular political platforms in the NOW. They rapidly run out of intellectual steam and usefulness with remoteness in time. For example, 100 years ago, 90%+ of US citizens regularly attended Christian church services; today far fewer do. Does this mean that all people then were more conservative? NO. IT MEANS THEY WERE MORE CHRISTIAN.

Seriously, this fallacy gets old here, and it is most repeated by young, naïve leftists compounding the fallacy with the circular "conservatives are bad because conservatives are bad." Whoever repeats this fallacy broadcasts their ignorance and lack of historical political awareness. It's transparent to try to switch labels from the history of specific political parties and their specific actions historically to "conservative" v "liberal" in a vain effort to deflect inconvenient realities.

 

clearly, it was a good thing - because it led on to Marx and Lenin

 

I take it you probably are too ignorant and undereducated to know that a lot Jacobins thought the revolution was a fantastic idea until they themselves lost all the power and had to put their own heads on the chopping block.

- - - Updated - - -

Hello, Rusky.

 

neither good nor bad, only the Ruling Elites changed slightly, the Rothshields have moved in.

the myth has it was but in fact Revolutions happen not when there's poverty but when there's a rise in wealth among certain circles.

 

It might not have been so bad if the crazy Montagnards had not gained the upper hand over the Girondists.

 

While Communist China was bringing more people out of poverty than any country in history, Capitalist India was throwing just as many people in the grave due to starvation and economic exploitation. Just in Capitalist India alone more people died from starvation (capitalist exploitation of resources, paying them to grow cash crops instead of food like they used to along with the free markets horrible management of resources) than in all of Russia and China combined. It was over 100 million deaths.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/12/understanding-aggressive-us-stance-towards-russia.html
"By “capitalist order”, Gaddis refers to Western oligarchic top down dominance of society, the system that, while ~100 million deaths occurred worldwide under so-called “communism”, ~100 million deaths simultaneously occurred under so-called “capitalist” India alone. As experts put it, while China was bringing some six hundred million people out of poverty (U.N. stat), an achievement unparalleled in history, “every eight years, India put as many skeletons in its closet” as China did during its years of famine. When the number of people killed under what is called “capitalism” is extended beyond India to the rest of the world, Chomsky notes, “it would be colossal.” In the West, he continues, only the “communist” death numbers can be mentioned. As for the number of “capitalist” deaths, one “wouldn’t talk about them”.

The “colossal” death figures flowing from their system being of no concern and, perhaps, some satisfaction to oligarchs*, and their ever-increasing personal enrichment at the expense of others being of chief import, their “order” had to be preserved, their brutal march of expansion forced onward. "

 

I still like how you ignored almost all of Europe declared war on them which is why they suspended the rights they did

The American revolution wasnt simply about "preserving English liberties", we also created many of our own on top of it as did the French. In fact, many of the ideas from the French Revolution are actually where we Americans and the British got their ideas of liberty, at least large parts of it. Nearby countries saw the Aristocracy in France lose their heads so they made reforms because they like their head on their shoulders.

 

Napoleon and the French Revolution both sucked. The means matter, end of debate.

 

Capitalist India? Oh come on! Just because a country isn't communist or socialist doesn't mean it's capitalist. My understanding is that India hasn't had a very free economy at all. It's still rated as "mostly unfree" by the 2014 index of economic freedom.

Because a reign of terror is always necessary during war time?

No no, you're wrong. The american colonies did have liberties, and the revolution was about keeping those liberties from the tryanny of the crown. It wasn't the same thing as with france.

"the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen. ... They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on English principles. The people are Protestants ... a persuasion not only favourable to liberty, but built upon it. ... My hold of the colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, though light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government—they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation—the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have; the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed that grows in every soil. They may have it from Spain, they may have it from Prussia. But, until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you."

edmund burke explaining how Great Britain should not infringe on the liberties of the american colonies. Note that burke is the father of modern conservatism, and that he supported the american revolution but not the french one. Partly because the american revolution was a conservative revolution (oxymoron I know) insofar as it was in order to preserve their liberties.

 

Im not talking about India today lol, im talking about India under British Capitalist rule.

Not normal war time, but when you are alone at war against almost the entire known world, yeah.....Things change.

Edmund Burke is a joke, as Marx himself correctly pointed out hilariously,

"In Das Kapital, Marx wrote:
The sycophant—who in the pay of the English oligarchy played the romantic laudator temporis acti against the French Revolution just as, in the pay of the North American colonies at the beginning of the American troubles, he had played the liberal against the English oligarchy—was an out-and-out vulgar bourgeois. "The laws of commerce are the laws of Nature, and therefore the laws of God." (E. Burke, l.c., pp. 31, 32) No wonder that, true to the laws of God and Nature, he always sold himself in the best market."

Marx (*)(*)(*)(*) on him

 

Marx didn't really s on anyone other than his own family, friends and self-respect. The only productive thing the man accomplished was giving statist dictators the pseudointellectual quackery they needed to manipulate the garbage, lowest common denominator masses and to seize power for themselves.

 

I think you needed that

 

the most successfull revolution was made by the bourgeoisie in the conforts of their own homes, and to this day we are still enjoying it. Revolutions that are made or taken to the streets never end well, most recente example, the arab spring.