Today is the national day of France

>t.jew juden kike

France a symbol of liberty throughout the consciousness of people from many parts of the world. Refused to stop it's imperialism in Vietnam and Algeria and had to be kicked out in wars that killed millions.
And didn't have equal rights for people in it's colonies. And didn't have equal rights for people who weren't white.
France doesn't deserve it's reputation. And the country is absolutely cringe.

Attached: 1525459124333.jpg (757x568, 96K)

what about the social movement

>killing rural peasants = killing nobles and the parisian ruling class
Only in the mind of an israeli.
Says the one who is one party away form a total dictatorship.

¿?
explain

The chance to gain wealth, access to another social class and that stuff

Happy cuntday, france

Attached: fgo_fate_grand_order_avenger_jeanne_darc_alter_1500684772_2d141ec40.jpg (1080x1080, 246K)

how did that change before french revolution Vs after?
french revolution created forced levies, making the general population get forced to participate in wars, and also created mandatory education, to brainwash the children into adoring the nation and teaching them the shape of their country, giving them a sense of belonging, and teaching them the history of the nation ofc too, so they think like parts of a country instead of free thinking individuals.

You tell me, look around, do I have to be a noble to reach peak government chairs? Will I die a serf no matter what I do?

>The symbol of opression according to the revolutionaires, the Bastille, only had 7 prisoners
So what? They did that to get gunpowder.

A hundred countries expulsions weren't enough.

did a peasant have to have a nobility title to become an artisan shoe-maker?

>Muh genocide
You have exactly one historian on your side and everyone else calling him a retard for not understanding the meaning of genocide
>Muh 7 prisoners
And guns, and gunpowder. You can't have a revolution with disarmed masses, it's why the Americans love their 2nd amendment so much (and why it surprises me France never had an equivalent)
>Muh genocide part 2
It was a literal civil war.

>and some women had their genitals filled with gunpowder and exploded
Based. Not because I think monarchists deserve that, I just hate women.

Yes, and America is taxed harder today than under British rule. You seem to have forgotten the two words that followed "no taxation".

No. And then that peasant would be taxed into oblivion, forced to finance a system where nobles exchanged titles and privileges. I hope I don't have to explain the problem of a system where one class pays for everything and the other makes all the decisions.

The French revolution is one of the most vile things to have beset the world.

>I hope I don't have to explain the problem of a system where one class pays for everything and the other makes all the decisions.
how this this difference from modern democracy tho
the political class is exactly that

>how this this difference from modern democracy tho
>democracy
Break apart that word to answer that.

And every intellectualoid will gloss over their and socialist brutality.

But god forbid a right wing even exists, then it is a moral disaster

Most Jewish post of the week. Disgusting subverter and destroyer of EUrope

and your fucking golem

Attached: (((Western Civilization))).jpg (2348x2796, 1.95M)

our "democracy" is representative governments
Do you choose the candidates for presidency?
Are you able to control what they do after they're elected? Do you vote for every decision they take?
You only have a few parties to choose from, and they choose their own leaders, they dont let others do it. And they can promise to do X during the campaign and then do the complete opposite when they get power.

((()))

There are A LOT of Jews and leftists in the Netherlands

a real democracy would have "politicans" that are held liable at all points and can be removed at any time, not powerful pseudo-kings voted by the people. Modern democracy is a pyramidal jerarchy, just like the old feudal states. Real democracy would be an inverted pyramid.

>Do you choose the candidates for presidency?
Yeah, if you're a member of the party then you do choose your favorite in the open primaries. It's why in the French elections Sarkozy didn't even participate. Also there are (at least in America) always some candidates running as independents.

>Are you able to control what they do after they're elected?
Of course not. Do I need to explain to you why direct democracy isn't viable when you're dealing with a massive country and tens of millions of people? Do I really need to go there?

>You only have a few parties to choose from
And these parties rise and fall with their popularity. Anyone can start their own party if they so desire, and the last Dutch elections saw quite a few new parties pop up and perform quite well.

>and they choose their own leaders
Again, in-party elections. If you want to pick the leader of the party, you become a member of that party.

>And they can promise to do X during the campaign and then do the complete opposite when they get power.
That IS a problem. And Rousseau adressed it. The solution is a referendum system like in Switzerland, where the electorate can overrule the representatives they have elected.

The solution isn't "oh this system is imperfect therefore we need to arbitrarily hand out positions based on birth".

I didn't know liberalism, the free market and meritocracy were Jewish inventions. Guess the Jews are based and redpilled.

Again: why are you arguing for monarchism rather than the Swiss/Rousseauvian system?

>the (((French))) committed the first genocide of the modern era
Fixed.

you give democracy certain traits that are simply wrong, the political class acts as rulers that choose what to do with the money they take from the common man, just like the nobility you mention.
>. If you want to pick the leader of the party, you become a member of that party.
ah yes, just be a bootlicker for the party that says "Yes" to every single part of their agenda for years, and then, maybe then, you will be able to have your voice heard.
>Swiss/Rousseauvian system?
cantons? i like that yeah

FUCK ALL THE NOBILITY
KILL ALL THE NOBILITY
FREE PEASANTRY

It's the bourgeois who are organizing the flooding of our countries with Arabs and niggers right now, the Jew guy is right, the only bad thing about the Terror is that it ended

Attached: yexd6fwyojn01.jpg (622x310, 75K)

Bourgueois and political elite are different things
you are bourgueois
stop using words you dont understand

>cantons? i like that yeah
Alright, I guess we agree then. I do agree that modern politicians tend to become their own de facto nobility, but they are a necessary evil. A Swiss referendum system would be good to keep them in check and would also lead to greater civic engagement (as we again observe in Switzerland). We wouldn't be, a Rousseau put it, "citizens for a day and subjects for 4 years", but we'd be actively involved because any law we don't like can be whistled back at any moment.

The French Revolution was a bourgeois one. The only ones who advocated anything even remotely communist-like were the Sans-Culottes (literally the Yellow Vests of their time and taken about as seriously) and Babeuf (who rightfully got executed for being retarded).

That jew is the burgeois flooding your country and doing shit like the French revolution.

If there are some anons who speak French I advise them to listen to this for sleep, it's pretty good, it's about how Robespierre did nothing wrond and Danton was a bitch.

It's literally the bourgeoisie, not only the political elite. Reminder that 95% of Parisians voted for Macron. There is no more sans-culotte in Paris, it has become a stronghold of the bourgeoisie

burgues is just a meme outdated word, we no longer live in a farmer's world, update your vocabulary.

LINK : youtu.be/XiM74n8I2Gc

Attached: 10120885.jpg (397x223, 20K)

I'm pretty left-wing myself, Macron is center left, sometimes Center right on some issues. Stop it.

>I didn't know liberalism, the free market and meritocracy were Jewish inventions. Guess the Jews are based and redpilled.
you didn't? just the other side of the jewish coin.

The first part of the Revolution (89-92) was bourgeois but then the sans-culottes who were early proletarians took the power (93-94) and utterly bfto'd both the bourgeois and the nobles thanks to based Robespierre
youtu.be/t32WSJyd-NM

>pretty left-wing myself,

Yikes

Robespierre was bourgeois himself. The entire revolution was a set up by people jealous of the aristocracy that wanted to be new aristocracy like Robespierre and De Sade and they shamelessly used the people to fulfil their goals.

I don't know which of the following beliefs is more retarded
>Sans-cullottes and Jacobins were the same thing
>The Sans-cullottes ever held power
>The Jacobin Club, mostly educated clerks and some revolution-friendly nobles, were proletarian
>The Jacobin Club, die-hard free market advocates who publically apologized for controlling the price of grain during a starvation(!), were proto-socialists
Is France really becoming so socialist that they've adopted the leftist strategy of rewriting their own history? When are you going to execute everyone who wears glasses?

The Monarchial stage of the revolution simply abolished the nobility legally. You still had people calling themselves the Duke of X or the Viscount of Y and they still had their estates, they just no longer had legal privileges. That's the whole "equality" part of the revolution: equality before the law and the abolition of all privilegesand exemptions. The Republican phase had both nobles and peasants on both sides of the conflict.

The center is the party of the bourgeoisie and has always been so you nigger

France has been heavily socialist for over a hundred years. A friendly reminder that the French milatary elite in WW1 thought that materials like bullets and shells were consumerist and anti socialist. They lead to the deaths and maiming of millions of French people.

A friendly reminder that the French believe in openly communist propaganda about Kennedy trying to kill De Gaulle

t. Melanchoin voter.

Face it m, he wouldn't do better.

>The Monarchial stage of the revolution simply abolished the nobility legally. You still had people calling themselves the Duke of X or the Viscount of Y and they still had their estates, they just no longer had legal privileges. That's the whole "equality" part of the revolution: equality before the law and the abolition of all privilegesand exemptions. The Republican phase had both nobles and peasants on both sides of the conflict.
So it was just a great big joke, like the word revolution itself. It always comes back again because it keeps revolving.
It was just one power hungry group that wanted the nobility and power they felt they deserved so they usurped through the people, and pretended there is some sort of noble cause in being proletariat as they always do just to get the rabble riled up and use violence.
This is why I hate all revolutionaries they look so much down on the people they claim to want to liberate.

Robespierre might have been a bourgeois but he was a defender of the interests of the poor, same way Marx was, and he was supported by the sans-culottes. He made a law called the law of the maximum of the grain price and sent hundreds to the guillotine for not respecting it
fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_du_Maximum

>Same way that marx was

Attached: 1457760326800.jpg (1111x597, 379K)

you can have the best intentions and still be an absolute retard that has no idea about what he talks about, like Marx

About that law...
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1926&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF
>The French Revolution is usually regarded in part, at least, as a revolution for economic liberalism. Even its most Jacobin protagonists, in the majority, placed their faith in the theories of Adam Smith and the Physiocrats rather than in an outmoded Etatisme and in proposing the general Maximum of 29 September 1793 the Committee of Public Safety could not forbear to remind the Convention "In normal times prices are formed naturally, by the reciprocal interests of buyers and sellers. This balance is infallible. It is useless for even the best government to interfere." (Page 16)

The Law of Maximums was closer to FDR's New Deal than it was to any socialist policy. It was the government intervening in an extreme situation, while recognizing that under normal circumstances less government intervention is better.

Bullshit. Robespierre was an early socialist, he hated the rich and hass always been regarded as an early socialist by real socialists and communists: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robespierre_Monument

ok retard

You're a retard

Look, even Marx described the French Revolution as bourgeois and I already demonstrated that Robespierre and his clique were free market capitalists. I really don't even know where I need to go with you. You have the right to believe what you want to believe, even if it is demonstrably wrong.

Everyone agrees that the first part of the Revolution was bourgeois and classical liberal in ideology. Both greatest French historians of the French R (François Furet and Albert Mathiez) consider the second part as early socialist. Why would Lenin command a statue of Robespierre (and Babeuf and Marat) if he were a classical liberal? The Jacobins might have been majority classical liberal but Robespierre was not and it's him who governed France. The idol of Robespierre was Rousseau, not Voltaire (unlike most of other French revolutionaries). When the body of Voltaire, a classical liberal, was taken to the Panthéon Robespierre protested and said that Voltaire is actually an enemy of the people. What are the first lines of the Confessions of Rousseau? In short: the greatest evil in Human history was when somebody settled somewhere and said "this land is mine."
Questioning the legitimacy of the concept of private property is the foundation of socialism

Robespierre was nutcase and mass murder. You trying to defend him and link him to your beliefs makes you look worse in every way

>Marxist historians active in the Communist Party interpreted the French Revolution as being Marxist
Wow

>Why would Lenin command a statue of Robespierre (and Babeuf and Marat) if he were a classical liberal?
Because Marxist histiography is teleological? I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a Marxist historian who thinks the Roman Populares were proto-communists.

>The idol of Robespierre was Rousseau, not Voltaire (unlike most of other French revolutionaries).
Rousseau was far from unpopular among the French Revolutionairies, to the point where his "General Will" doctrine is even made part of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. In fact Rousseau was the Republican of the two, whereas Voltaire favored Enlightened Despotism more.

>When the body of Voltaire, a classical liberal, was taken to the Panthéon Robespierre protested and said that Voltaire is actually an enemy of the people.
Proofs. The only thing I can find is that Robespierre directly appealed to Voltaire for his Cult of the Supreme Being. Using that man's reasoning for something so central to his ideology would be weird to say the least if he considered that man an enemy of the people. Are you sure you're not talking about Mirabeau, who actually WAS removed?

>What are the first lines of the Confessions of Rousseau? In short: the greatest evil in Human history was when somebody settled somewhere and said "this land is mine."
Rousseau saw this as a problem because property implies government and government implies the ability to oppress and subdue - a nigh-totalitarian state as Hobbes envisioned it. He tries to solve this problem by making the government responsible to the people, not by abolishing property. You only see this reasoning pop up decades later with Proudhon. I dare you to find a passage where Rousseau actively advocates abolishing property rights. Not "subjecting them to the General Will" (ie. legal boundaries), downright abolishing.

As for a "practical study" of Rousseau's ideology, we have the Constitutions of Corsica and Poland. Neither of which abolish private property or contain anything even in the slightest communist. The closest you can get is maybe in the Constitution of Corsica where Rousseau tries to discourage urbanization in favor of a Roman style "farmer-soldier" lifestyle.

The rural majority opposed radical changes to their indidenous institutions (different for each region). There were revolts throughout the whole country the summer of the Revolution.

The revolution was mostly a Parisian act against the rest of France. Urbanites in other regions where nobles were themselves urbanites joined in. In Vendée where the aristocracy mostly lived in their own rural estates close to their farmers the reaction was strongest, but only really burst when the National Assembly called for forced conscription. Another important case-study is the conflict in Brittany, with Brettons that had supported the revolution unitl it's radicalization and purges.

Later, even other urbanites turned against the National Assembly because of the overrepresentation of Parisian interests hurting national interests and there were federalist revolts in major provincial towns like Marseille led by revolutionary republicans that were sick and tired of being pushed around by Parisians. Parisians squashed them.

Over the course of the centralization process, regional cultures and languages were supressed and an homogenized national identity engineered from Paris was imposed on every citizen.

Even now, France is almost synonymous with Paris outside the country.

What do you call it when imperialism works it's way from the heart of the country to every corner of the body? There is no good term for this political, cultural cancer.

This thread is why the one true left can't win. Just buy guns and make a coup Stalinists instead of talking all days about which one is bourgeoisie or proletariat.

Attached: 7a5.gif (482x800, 29K)