/edu/ - Education

Here to hear info about this

I don't see a fault with him fundamentally. He set out to do something and he did it. Then he got executed like Jesus. Flawless ending. Now if he had continued and remained in control it would have been different.

Which is to say Robespierre is one of those people that are fundamentally innocent. Like a leftcom baby. After all there is a reason he is called the Incorruptible.

>>18384
>So did the Thermidorian reactionaries make up all the crazy shit about Robespierre
yes.
Robespierre was awesome, everyone seething about the terror were reactionary fucks who participated and were opportunist snakes, contrary to the incorruptible

>>18388
>Girondins were terrorist counter-revolutionaries
Y-you mean podcaster Mike Duncan l-l-lied to me about the Girondins and liberal nobles like Lafayette being part of the more heckin wholesome chungus pre-terror stage of the revolution?!?!?!?!
>The people had support for Robespierre and saw the executions of those ghouls King Louis and Marie Antoinette as a good thing
Y-you mean podcaster Mike Duncan l-l-lied to me about the people being mostly peasants who loved their father protector King and went into revolt against Paris after the revolution "overstepped" its prerogatives by executing innocent chungus king Louis who was just heckin incompetent and not a tyrant?!?!?!?!
>The trials were as fair as they could be considering the conspiracies that had to be put down
Y-you mean podcaster Mike Duncan l-l-lied to me about the Law of Suspects and the Law of 22 Prairial abolishing legal process and allowing people to be thrown into the guillotine after short show trials?!?!?!?!


HE CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT=

There was no good reason why Robespierre purged the ènrages and Hébertists other than to protect his own class position. Punching left has its consequences, especially if they make up a relevant part of the security apparatus over traitors to the revolution.

>>18391
This. The people defending clothpeter ITT don't know about the purges of the ènrages and Hébertists

>>18390
This guy is a liberal reformist who perpetuates the centrist reformist liberal Republican civility fetish and is always pushing the narrative that revolutions devour their own children

>>18388
Yup, especially about the military aggression. Great Britain, despite being a constitutional monarchy didn't like France becoming a Republic and financed the opposition, the aristocracy, in order to fuck up the young Republic. Ain't it funny how most countries who undergo a revolution and turns into a dictatorship, are largely due to external factors meddling in domestic affairs. The early Soviets could have handled the White Army just fine if it wasn't for the fact that not only did continental Europe give financial support to the reactionaries, but they also sent in their own armies to crush the young Red Republic. All this interference is bound to lead to despotism. Interestingly Cuba was spared a majority of the external suffering due to the fact that they were supported by the Soviets and never had to centralize too much that it became despotic.

>>18394
>Ain't it funny how most countries who undergo a revolution and turns into a dictatorship, are largely due to external factors meddling in domestic affairs.
Everyone step outside and roar this at the sky immediately. Your post is fundamental to me and the dopes around me out here.

>>18395
>Everyone step outside and roar this at the sky immediately.
My neighbors are looking at me funny

Robespierre did nothing wrong, and the fact that the Thermidorian Reactionaries thinks so just means our guy was truly the incorruptible.

>>18398

See >>18391

>>18391
>>18392
The Hébertists literally tried to coup the National Convention in a violent insurrection so that they could overthrow the Jacobins (which failed because they didn't have popular support), exactly what reason would Robespierre and his fellow deputees have to let that slide? Were they just supposed to let a group that tried to have them removed from the Convention and executed go free? Same thing for the enragés, they encouraged extra-legal action such as rioting and questioned the legitimacy of the Convention altogether. That last part being quite a threatening statement, considering the fact that it's coming from the most pro-Terror faction of the Revolution.

So no, the Jacobins weren't just "punching left" because of them being traitors to the Revolution or whatever. The enragés vocally stated their willingness to stage a counterrevolution, and the Hébertists went and tried to actually commit one. The Jacobins had little to no reason to just let this slide: let's not forget that France was under attack by virtually the whole of Europe. The last thing they needed was insurrectionary factions at home.

The Hébertists especially would still be a pretty undesirable faction when looking past those external conditions, considering their blatant opportunism (see Hébert's opposition to price ceilings) and their uncritical acceptance of absolutely schizoid conspiracy theories, such as claiming that Marie Antoinette sexually abused her firstborn son. It may have been a great loss that the repression of the Hébertists took away the biggest platform of sans-culottes representation, but the actual deputies making up the faction absolutely deserved what they got.

That's not to say that the Jacobins were completely flawless, Robespierre's take on religion was pretty bad and they ultimately failed to uplift the sans-culottes (and women especially), but it's doubtful how able they actually were to do so considering their tenuous position. I don't think it's good Marxist historical analysis to just conclude that the Jacobins were reactionary by noting that there were, in a vacuum, rival factions further to the left.

>>18400
>Same thing for the enragés, they encouraged extra-legal action
revolution is extra-legal action. The government at that point was doing show trials. There was nothing legal going on. To judge the enragés for doing "extra legal action" of protesting and rioting is absurd. Robespierre had a centrist vision for how the revolution was supposed to go and was purging revolutionaries to both his left and his right, so that he could create his romanized larpy republic of virtue.

ITT:

>>18400
People often forget but during the French Revolution it's when we saw all the struggles in a modern bourgeois republic play out in a compartmentalized fashion. This was the first state with proper working class struggles taking a political form rather than sporadic reaction such as the smashing of machines. The young Republic had essentially a "woke" working class which was semi-conscious and questioning the bourgeois from the jump: what about the fourth estate? The working class.

>>18403
the French Revolution is the go-to example of a bourgeois revolution. i don't think most people forget that

robespierre was kinda retarded. for example when he got arrested by his political opponents he tried to commit suicide by shooting himself but only succeeded in shooting his own jaw off. He spent the rest of his short life in considerable pain, with his lower jaw hanging off of his skull like some zombie shit. they tied it to his head with a hankerchief, but when he was going to be guillotined, the executioner ripped it off, afraid it would interfere with the mechanism. Not only was he unable to have any "famous last words." He shrieked in pain as he was being loaded into the guillotine. He somehow managed to make a painless execution into a humiliating and painful affair.

>>18405
How naive could you possibly be? The Thermidorian reactionaries shot him in the jaw when he tried to defend himself and claimed he did it to himself. He of course was never able to point this out because he was unable to defend himself.

Robespierre's legacy:
>Monarchy: Overthrown
>Slavery in the colonies: Abolished
>Clerical Celibacy: Abolished
>French involvement in the transatlantic slave trade: Abolished
>Titles of nobility: Abolished
>Citizenship: Expanded
>Suffrage: Universal manhood, including Jews and people of color

They call this a "reign of terror" because he guillotined some reactionaries. Then when the reactionaries reversed all of this and started guillotining leftists, they don't call it a reign of terror. They just call it a "Thermidorian reaction." A term meant to sound innocuous. A term meant to make your eyes glaze over the text. This is how reactionaries write their history.

>>18406
> he was unable to defend himself.

meant to say he was unable to speak

>>18401
Extra-legal action and rejecting the legitimacy of the government is absolutely a valid thing to judge someone for when the government in question is revolutionary. Don't forget that there were people among the Jacobins who advocated for basically the exact same points as the enragés, including total class equality and universal female suffrage, who kept their place in the Jacobin Club and were never purged since they weren't outright advocating for counterrevolution. The most prominent of these would be François-Noël "Gracchus" Babeuf, who led the Conspiracy of the Equals after Thermidor.

>show trials
Both the Hébertists and enragés supported the Revolutionary Tribunal and in fact wanted its powers to be increased. On average, about half of all defendants would be acquitted. Sure, it would not be considered a very legitimate court nowadays since it placed the burden of proof on the defense rather than the prosecution, but it was lenient considering the circumstances, and can hardly be called a "show trial". Let's also not forget that the entire reason it was established in the first place was so that those accused of political crimes had a chance to defend themselves in a court of law instead of being lynched by an angry revolutionary mob, like what happened during the September Massacres.

>>18408
>Sure, it would not be considered a very legitimate court nowadays since it placed the burden of proof on the defense rather than the prosecution
well that wouldn't be considered very legitimate back then either. In the early 13th century, Louis IX of France banned all trials by ordeal and introduced the presumption of innocence to criminal procedures. It was during the seventh crusade that he had witnessed the presumption of innocence in practice by the ruling Muslims and sought to adopt and implement this law on his return to France. Presumption of innocence hadn't been "progressive" in france since the 1200s lmao. The presumption of guilt is characteristic of very backwards regimes, even those that claim to be advancing progressive causes. and it's funny, since the presumption of guilt ended up being a double edged sword used on the Jacobins during the Thermidorian reaction anyway. Those were show trials, homie. Presumption of guilt is very characteristic of a show trial.
> but it was lenient considering the circumstances,
presumption of guilt is not lenient
>Let's also not forget that the entire reason it was established in the first place was so that those accused of political crimes had a chance to defend themselves in a court of law instead of being lynched by an angry revolutionary mob, like what happened during the September Massacres.
this is what makes them "show" trials. They were basically a continuation of the September Massacres, but with a facade of legality.

>>18409
the WOKE MOB works off of PRESUMPTION OF GUILT while the BASED BOURGEOISIE work off of PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE and BLACKSTONE'S MAXIM

>>18384
i didn't read the file extension; i thought it was just a jpeg

it scared the shit outta me lol

>>18408
>François-Noël "Gracchus" Babeuf, who led the Conspiracy of the Equals after Thermidor.
the absolute boy

robespierre was a great dude

What books should I read about this? I wanna own someone the next time I get into an argument about this.

>>18410
>the WOKE MOB works off of PRESUMPTION OF GUILT
i guess the original woke mob was the angloid puritans doing rigged witch trials on each other

>>18406
if they were trying to shoot his jaw off, instead of him failing to kill himself, why did they bother arresting and executing him? instead of to load the gun with another bullet and shoot him again? He was mostly unconscious for an entire day after the failed suicide. There was plenty of opportunity to kill him as intended, right? Unless you concede that a show trial was their aim all along and Robespierre was trying to deprive them of this by killing himself.

>>18391
hebertists were ultras