Why does Holla Forums love Robespierre? >A majority of the people executed during the Reign of Terror were working class

Intelligent people also know that past oppressors must be subdued and surpressed lest they conspire to reclaim their control.

Divine violence in what way?

Being a "communist" during the transition out of feudalism is fucking retarded

wish we'd tried the law of the maximum in the 1970s rather than fucking monetarism tbh

This depends on whether we're dealing with the general or the specific.
It's all well and good to say that in principle we should be nice to those who wronged us. It's quite another to say that certain individuals shouldn't be made to suffer just to appease our cruel natures, if they've engaged in actions sufficient to make it cathartic rather than painful.
at least that's how i rectify the immediate desire to make those i dislike suffer with my shortly following tendency towards guilt and mercy.

Also some degree of especially after you've had someone tortured for catharsis.

If his goal was to dispose the ideological values of the monarchy, then wouldn't you say he failed in that regard?

during his lifetime no, but ultimately the revolution succeeded in that regard.

What about after the revolution? The republic soon descended into monarchy with Napoleon

flag checks out

that's hardly robespierre's fault, he was executed by the same idiots that let napoleon come into power

This divine violence in practice is what we find in the terror of the french revolution, or the red terror of 1919, where the population previously oppressed by the violence of the law, and its representatives, imposes its own violence on its enemies, without the biblical lawlike punishments, but as actors of its own justice.

t. menshevik

Fair enough

The bolsheviks implemented a perfectly fine version of capitalism on their own.

No, they weren't. Most were dissident republicans or unaffiliated civilians.

Because it allows the illiterate babbies roaming Holla Forums to be edgy on purpose.

...

your waifu a shit.

...

You're moving the goalpost. You claimed victims of the Reign of Terror were "monarchists". Most weren't.

The very same logic could be applied to snuffing out Robespierre and his pals. In fact, that's exactly what happened.

Of course they can. Most people actually don't get involved in that kind of political processes. Revolutions often are the deed of an active minority.

I can smells the fears on you, tbh.

lacan.com/zizrobes.htm

It was justified because the Jacobins were on the side of "truth", read Zizek.

...

Exactly, I think the execution of Robespierre was the perfect end to the terror.
Everyone is involved, whether they think they are or not, and whether they are actively taking part in the associated violence or not. "Neutrality" in a revolution is effectively contra-revolutionary.

Beyond based.

OP here. I forgot that practically the whole of Europe attacked revolutionary France. Sorry for being a complete faggot, lol

Robie's only crime wasn't purging Napoleon.

Sure as hell I'm saving that pic.

Quads never lie. Fuck "justice" and "righteous" anger. These notions are backwards and reactionary as fuck.

O W T H E E D G E

t. ISIS

t. liberal

You're not the OP, niglord

...

What does that have to do with anything? Europe had done so to consolidate the balance of power, considering France was a powerhouse at the time. Feudal France likely would have done similar, had another country experienced revolution (remember that this is the country that exploited conditions of the Reformation to weaken the Habsburgs). Considering that Napoleon went into power, Europe was right to do so.

exquisite logic there

top notch praxis faggot

Europe took precaution towards Robespierre out of fear of someone who would hold power, successfully being able to invade their territory (its of no coincidence that French armies grew in numbers during the revolution, further justifying their fears)

The monarchs of other countries feared a successful revolution abroad because it can spread, you dumbass.

because they were monarchies who feared democracy. French armies didn't become imperialistic until Napoleon, under Robespierre they were trying to liberate the people.

Napoleon was liberating Germans and Spanish from their shitty feudal regimes

he also instituted market reforms which benefited the french economy at their expense.

and? there was no socialism to be had at that point, this isn't even mentioning under french imperial capitalism the nations of Europe were still better off under Napoleon's exploitative arm than under the arm of feudal monarchs

Why would others revolt in Europe? Other countries (UK, Prussia, Austria, etc) had started to experience economic development, and multiple rulers had already taken up liberal values. There would be no significant reason to revolt, except in, say, Spain or in central Germany.

The social movements of democracy around the 1780s were increasingly viewed less negatively overtime, Europe's worries during the Revolution were purely strategical

You fucks are like Liberterians thinking that if the whole world broke out in civil war or zombies that they'd survive. I wonder how many of you will continue to support a revolution when you're friend puts you're head on the chopping block for not being pure enough.

Hot damn got the wrong you're wrong twice in a row.

...

rulers in Europe still had a hateboner for democracy for years after the French Revolution ended. That's why they restored the king.

I'm willing to forgive Porky as long as he recognizes that The System forced him to do terrible things and he gets all his property confiscated and spends the rest of his days doing community service for atonement, but if there's the slightest doubt about his sincerity it's off to the reeducation camp and he's branded a traitor to the revolution and must never be allowed to accumulate influence again.

Porkies who clearly saw themselves as exploiters and kleptocrats and had no qualms at all about fucking over people for power or personal enrichment are morally bankrupt sociopaths and shouldn't even get a shot at redemption. They should just be marooned somewhere and we can document the horrific societies they might form as textbook cases for why kindness, altruism and humanity are so necessary. It's not about revenge, it's just flushing out the people who make communism impossible.

Isn't this what Mao did to Puyi?

Because the original monarchy would've likely been more accessible to diplomacy or coalitions, than Napoleon's rule. Also, by the time of 1804, France had ceased to be a democracy

Yes, it's a very good example.

true but European kings were still afraid of democracy as a concept during that time. Restoring the king was their way of trying to undo everything the french revolution did

So fucking based

This is the origin of Mao's actually pretty awesome attitude toward nuclear annihilation, based

Pretty dishonest, don't you think?

Mao's ethics are essentially the same as Robespierre's in that statement, Mao was just as unafraid of death as Robespierre, he just expanded the scope of the ethic from the personal, to the national

That's not how ethics work, that's not what that Zizek text is about, and that's ignoring the whole context of this discussion for cheap anti-communist liberal talking points.

Btw, the commies never used atomic bombs on civilians.

But Mao was unironically good

"A sensibility that wails almost exclusively over the enemies of liberty seems suspect to me. Stop shaking the tyrant's bloody robe in my face, or I will believe that you wish to put Rome in chains."

Why don't they quote Robbie instead of that hack Popper

It was the Girodians that wanted to invade people, Robespierre was against any invasion