>revolution to overthrow an unfair class system
>goes to war to spread the revolution across the world
Was the French Revolution (and other revolutions of the era) and the Napoleonic Wars the spiritual predecessor to Marxist revolutions? Is the struggle of classes a cycle that will one day erupt again?
>goes to war to spread the revolution
Dude.
>>354569
Stalin = Napoleon
>>354569
They didn't "go to war to spread the revolution", they went to war because they were attacked
Them spreading the revolution ideals was a side effect
>>354622
They were attacked because the royalty of Europe feared being dethroned. The spread of the revolution was at the very heart of the Napoleonic wars.
>The French celebrate the devastation of the aristocracy in the name of "liberté, égalité, fraternité"
>The French regard an imperialistic despot who arose a few short years later out of the power vacuum caused by aforementioned decimation to be their greatest leader
Fucking frogs, man.
>>354691
you're an idiot, and obviously a brit
>>354735
Please explain how liberal democracy is consistent with despotism.
>>354691
Was Napoleon given absolute power before or after the royal leaders of Europe invaded in attempt to strangle the revolution?
>>354778
During
>>354778
He was given leadership, but he forced his way into absolute power.
>>354569
>Is the struggle of classes a cycle that will one day erupt again?
Yes, and they'll get beaten again just like they do every time.
It should be obvious that attacking the ones who have all the power and money is not going to be a victory.
>>354778
>>354811
Actually he took power by force in 1799
One could considere it a dick move, but given that the ruling group at the time (Directory) was about to betray the revolution and help the monarchy to come back in exchange for noblity titles, maybe it was the best thing to do
After that, he was elected emperor in 1804
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_constitutional_referendum,_1804
>>354824
But the French Revolution did end in a victory for the liberal aristocratie and bourgeoisie, and the Empire did spread it to the whole of Europe in fine, making it what it is today.
>>354846
Making life slightly more comfortable for plebs is not exactly "winning".
They are still plebs you know. And the class system is still very much in place.
>>354846
And don't forget the various communist revolutions. They had a good run in eastern Europe and the PRC is still the same line of governance created by the revolution despite existing in a now thoroughly capitalist/classicist world.
>>354857
>they are still plebs
I don't like that this /v/ meme is ruining /his/ discussion.
>>355364
>No, because the wars weren't started in opposition to social stratification.
They were started in protection of social stratification. The oppressors declared war on France in order to squelch the revolution and reinstate the monarchy of France.
>>355517
It's France who started the first revolutionary war, and at least part of the reason iirc was to "export the revolution"
>>354569
The liberal ideology he was fighting for and spreading was the one the Marxists opposed. Liberal means quite the opposite of marxism everywhere in the world except the USA.
>goes to war to spread the revolution across the world
How the hell did you become so ignorant?
It was a reaction to being attacked by paranoid monarchies.
>>354569
No. The enlightenment lead to the revolutions. Educated masses always revolt under unjust rule
sometimes (as with the case of russia) all that is required is one educated man spouting to those of average education (in regards to humanities I can promise you every single person in Russia for the last 200 years can recite Pushkin from memory proving at least partial education)
>>355563
>paranoid monarchies
Who were paranoid of the revolution spreading due to the universality of the revolution's grievances.
The revolution was going to spread and the monarchs knew it. They mobilized their slaves before their slaves realizes they were the ones with the power.
>>355592
I'm pretty sure I read somehwere that Marx was partly inspired by the French revolution. I can't help but think that had the revolution that started in France spread, deposed more monarchs, and generally made the lower socioeconomic classes more class aware then there would have been less of hoopla about Marxism.
>>355542
Both revolutions were expressly against systems that kept the rich rich and the poor poor and resulted in the execution of royal lines. The grievances of both revolutions seemed the same. So what exact key differences are you reffering to?
>>355715
Marx wasn't in the russian revolution. In fact, Russia would've been the last place Marx would have expected his ideals to be put on practice.
The french revolution (with the american before it, and in general the spread of liberalism) was the event that allowed the bourgeois to put themselves in the peak of society. The poor poor were not to be more benefited than the rich rich, for the target was the noble (rich or poor). The obejctive was to destroy, once and for all, the class system of the ancient regime. But this doesn't mean that it pretended to destroy all hierarchies, there was nothing wrong with rich landholders being rich as long as they accepted they were citizens like everyone.
The marxist ideology was literally against this system. It wanted to abolish not only the class system of the ancient regime but the very concept of a class. Though he was part of the clss of the bourgeois himself, Marx wanted the workers to fight against them. Bourgeois and workers were natural allies in the liberal revolutions against the old regime.
The important thing about the French Revolution (and the 1848 Revolutions which are also relevant) is that the bourgeoisie were interested in overthrowing the privileges of feudalism and gaining some political rights for themselves, however they were equally interested in making sure the working class didn't gain too much power, because then something crazy like property distribution might happen. Class conflict and all that.
>>355774
That doesn't necessarily go against what I was saying. The relative failure of the French Revolution to significantly end the exploitation of working class is what lead Marxist revolutions to be more drastic in their methods and goals.
>>354569
>Is the struggle of classes a cycle that will one day erupt again?
Given that without the 25 year rule, it last erupted during a series of Pilots and Air Traffic Controller's strikes, amongst a white collar professional elite, in two first world countries, I'd say that the struggle of classes never went away, as Marx says in the first four paragraphs of the execrable Manifesto.
>>354569
Yes, the French revolution was one of the first fully mobilized and successful examples of literal class war.
And of course it's going to happen again, class revolutions have sprung up all throughout history. It's not going to stop now.
>>355563
>paranoid
youre implying it wasnt justified
>>357588
He viewed himself as the "executor of the Revolution".
>>357518
>trying this hard to avoid the filter and use meme words
You are confusing Napoleon with Robespierre
