What caused the French revolution to spiral out of control?
>>706103
The arrogance of the royalty and nobility combined with the suffering of the huddled masses.
Look at Syria.
>>706103
French monarchy
>>706103
The decision to spread the revolution through war.
Bread.
>>706103
Paris. It had for the longest time been the centre of power for the French. Up until the Revolution it had been where the King reigned and was regarded as the axis which spun France. It served as a breeding ground and as a focal point for revolutionary sentiment in France. The Jacobins/Montagnards - as thé radical faction - were pretty much a populist, statist, centralist group focus on diverting all power to Pari. Compare that the to Girondins, who were pretty much the antithesis of this.
You see it time and time again during the revolution that while the rest of the country was in uproar (either occupied, rebelling, or siding with the enemy), Paris remained untouched and unwavering. Allowing it to dictate the course of the revolution, especially after even further centralization.
>>706139
Are you retarded?
War happened because the neighboring monarchies wanted to crush the revolution
The spread of the revolution to other countries was merely a consequence of the war, not the cause of it or the primary objective
>>706387
>Girondin leader Jacques-Pierre Brissot proposed an ambitious military plan to spread the Revolution—one that Napoleon later achieved. He called on the Convention to dominate Western Europe by conquering the Rhineland, Poland, and Holland, with a goal of creating a protective ring of satellite republics in Britain, Spain and Italy by 1795.
Oh gee, why would they want to do that
>>706103
Because the French have a horrible idea what a """"""""""""republic""""""""" is. Murdering priests and nobles isn't a genius idea when your nation is literally surrounded by monarchies. Yet we're supposed to feel bad for the French because "MUH democracy."
>>706458
>still being this mad about the continental system
Britain pls go
>>706458
Robespierre did nothing wrong
ALL revolutions end up spiraling out of control, the French Revolution was no exception.
There's always too much bad blood and resentment built up between the haves and the have-nots over the decades so that when the revolution finally kicks off, the mobs are calling for blood and it's very hard to satisfy their bloodlust with just a few executions or imprisonments here and there.
>>706458
fite me
>>706103
France lacked the institutions and the right socioeconomic situation to implement the most basic of their revolutionary ideals.
>>706103
>>707854
I read the OP wrong.
Jacobins.
Any other answer is wrong.
>>706103
why are you making this thread again?
>>706546
That's pretty obviously an obnoxious, sneering murk pig. Just look at the way it writes.
>>706458
butthurt nigel cant accept the fact ppl like frogs more than bongs
>>707867
>ALL revolutions end up spiraling out of control,
It only seems out of control from a counter-revolutionary perspective, which lends itself to insurrection against the revolutionary government in the name of 'restoring order'.
ALL revolutions feature spineless cattle-men, constantly moaning 'toooo faaaar, toooo faaaaaar...', whose desire to hold back and moderate the revolution eventually make them its hangmen.
That alone is half the reason why 'all' revolutions 'spiral out of control' (become violent).
So is the deepest answer not obviously "slave morality" and "ressentiment"?
>>709452
no because that doesn't take the mindnumbing headache inducing number of differing groups during the revolution into account, every ruling group was overtaken by a more extreme one until you got the terror and then you had some inefficient governing until napoleon took over
not a napoleon fanboy either but he was able to export the revolutionaries by getting them killed all over europe which helped prevent dissent at home
>>706103
Robespierre was killed
>>709458
>no because that doesn't take the mindnumbing headache inducing number of differing groups
There is master morality and slave morality - to this I immediately add that in all higher and mixed cultures attempts at a mediation between both moralities make an appearance as well, even more often, a confusion and mutual misunderstanding between the two, in fact, sometimes their harsh juxtaposition - even in the same man, within a single soul.
>every ruling group was overtaken by a more extreme one until you got the terror and then you had some inefficient governing until napoleon took over
In an even
more decisive and profound sense than then, Judea once again triumphed
over the classical ideal with the French Revolution: the last political nobil-
ity in Europe, that of the French seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, col-
lapsed under the ressentiment-instincts of the rabble, - the world had never
heard greater rejoicing and more uproarious enthusiasm! True, the most
dreadful and unexpected thing happened in the middle: the ancient ideal
itself appeared bodily and with unheard-of splendour before the eye and
conscience of mankind, and once again, stronger, simpler and more pen-
etrating than ever, in answer to the old, mendacious ressentiment slogan of
priority for the majority, of man's will to baseness, abasement, levelling,
decline and decay, there rang out the terrible and enchanting counter-
slogan: priority for the few] Like a last signpost to the other path, Napoleon
appeared as a man more unique and late-born for his times than ever a man
had been before, and in him, the problem of the noble ideal itself was made
flesh
>>709465
>Praise be to Holy Friedrich, who guides us in night as in day, who blesses us and grants us the will to power, and who protects us from slave morality. Amen
Drone.
>>709467
>hasn't been taught the overman
pleb
The French revolution had 3 stages to it, which is why things turned into such a clusterfuck.
1.) Bourgeoise demand a constitution with some rights, king is chill with this.
2.) The working class of Paris feels screwed over, as they didn't get some of the rights they were promised. The stage is set for the upper class land-owning bourgeoisie and the working-class Jacobins to fight. The Jacobins take power for some time, instilling what is dubbed by the losing Bourgeoisie as the "Reign of Terror."
3.) The Bourgeoisie get some buddies from other European states and take the Jacobins out, and later put in Napoleon, hoping that if they put crazy in charge for a bit, things will sort out. Things did not get sorted out by putting crazy in charge, which is usually the result when this strategy is attempted.
To summarize, there were 2 revolutions, and lots of fighting between classes. Also, the French revolution is often compared to the American revolution as being out of control. A big difference between them was that America was very much seperated from Britain, and there were two clear sides (along with some American loyalists who supported Britain, but they didn't do much to change the outcome). France was a big salad bowl of enemies, which made the conflict very intense.
Don't forget, until the 20th centuries, we (french people) were racist ( a lot of French are always racist, but that's illegal). And during the revolution of 1789, (even if e don't say it), more than monarchies, we killed all strangers (nearly), that was a fucking slaughter. Then a civil wars begin, and we fall in a stupid spiral.
>>709582
Because I'm so fucking bad in English :D
>>709592
Parler en français
>>709582
no u
>>706103
La levée d'un impôt qui touchait les Nobles aussi...
>>709594
Ok.
Donc je disais.
Avant la révolution française de 1789, la France a subit un grand mouvement migratoire, qui a su atteindre la capitale. La population, à ce moment là, était déjà agacée par le comportement monarchiste de Louis XIV, qui était un exerçait une répression des pauvres et de la population non-anobli en général. En effet, il cherchait surtout du pouvoir culturel et économique (ce qui a permis à la France d'avoir de grandes universités, encore aujourd'hui). Cependant les nobles représentaient une part minoritaire de la population. Or, et nous le voyons dans toutes sociétés, les populations pauvres, et réprimés, deviennent rapidement haineux des "obstacle" que ce soit les riches, ou les migrants fraîchement arrivé. D'où la monté d'un mouvement raciste populaire. Après l'arrivé de Louis XVI, les immigrés étaient déjà à Paris, ce qui a provoqué une réaction extrémiste de la population, qui a donc déclenché une guerre civile, pour se débarrassé du système monarchique que ne les "écoutaient" pas, et des immigrés. Ce fut un terrible massacre, car la révolution aurait pu ne pas être une "spirale", si les français c'étaient contentés de renverser le roi. Nous avons tendance à cacher les événements racistes de la révolution, en prônant partout dans les écoles que ce n'était qu'un renversement de pouvoir.
>be French
>kill King and his innocent kids
>not enough
>kill nobles who don't want to give up their legally legitimate land
>not enough
>kill priests who don't advocate murder
>not enough
>kill your own people who revolted for disagreeing with all this violence
>>709568
>being racist is illegal
>>709655
Not during the 18th, like slave...
>>709614
Faux
Ce n'est pas la Peuple qui a fait la Révolution mais la bourgeoisie montante et la noblesse qui avait été dépourvue de tous ses privilèges.
Lorsque Louis XVI a décidé de lever un impôt exceptionnel qui toucherait les Nobles eux aussi, la noblesse s'est enflammée et a frondé pour réclamer une constitution qui leur permettrait de regagner du pouvoir en limitant celui du Roi.
Ils se sont servis de la populace pour prendre et attaquer le pouvoir royal, puis ont repris les fusils de la populace pour la donner à la garde nationnale, garde bourgeoise dont le seul prix du costume coûtait un an de salaire pour un ouvrier.
La Révolution n'a été rien d'autre qu'une révolution bourgeoise pour mettre fin à la monarchie et accomplir la naissance de la société libérale et bourgeoise dans laquelle le capitalisme des classes bourgeoises et des nobles déchus pourrait s'exprimer sans la tutelle de l'Etat monarchique... Soit en tout libéralisme...
>>709614
>Répression des pauvres
Non.
>Or, et nous le voyons dans toutes sociétés
Gênant.
>mouvement raciste populaire
Il n'y a pas à parler de racisme à cette période, tu fais dans l'anachronisme.
>les immigrés étaient déjà à Paris, ce qui a provoqué une réaction extrémiste de la population, qui a donc déclenché une guerre civile, pour se débarrassé du système monarchique que ne les "écoutaient" pas, et des immigrés.
Cela ne rime à rien. Je te suggère d'aller feuilleter un ou deux livres d'histoire sur la Révolution française (Révolution, Consulat, Empire de la collection Histoire de France).
>Ce fut un terrible massacre, car la révolution aurait pu ne pas être une "spirale"
C'est un mauvais emploi de la conjonction de coordination.
Tu considères la Révolution comme étant causée par un mouvement migratoire vers Paris et par un odium regni/opulenti sorti d'on ne sait où : soit, Paris était une ville très peuplée, mais il n'y avait en aucune façon de haine entre les citadins et les individus récemment installés.
Tu mets pêle-mêle l'idéologie de racisme et le thème de l'immigration, il n'est pas pas compliqué de voir dans ton explication une contamination des événements actuels sur le sujet.
De plus, tu occultes le rôle de la crise de subsistance d'alors, des Lumières, des philosophes, de la bourgeoisie qui fut la force dirigeante de la Révolution, de la politisation de la bourgeoisie.
Non seulement tu parles mal anglais, mais ton français est médiocre, et le vocabulaire est mal choisi.
>>709677
J'ai comme l'impression que le /his/ va finir par être envahi par des gauchistes qui voient l'Histoire de France sous le prisme de l'antiracisme.
C'est la première fois que je vois une personne dire que la Révolution a été causée par le racisme des français...
>>706105
The first sentence is a stale bait but the second one actually made me mad.
8/10
>>709693
Il est soit un sous-âge, soit un maître-ruse pour sûr.
>>709693
C'est toujours mieux qu'une invasion de frustré
>>709716
Ouais, j'ai une toute petite bite, 8 cm en érection, je mesure 1m65 pour 90 kg, j'ai 35 ans, je suis puceau et je vis encore chez ma mère.
Ouais c'est bien ce que je dis, on reconnait là tout le discours de gauchiste et toute l'agressivité du gauchiste.
>>706345
This. Paris turned into the seat of government and it used that to influence the rest of the country that didn't have the same views. This is compounded on by the fact that the revolutionary government couldn't solve the bread and economic problems plaguing France so the hyper centralized government was highly vulnerable to angry Parisians who would mob the delegates and force them to make shit decisions.
>>709568
>Don't forget, until the 20th centuries, we (french people) were racist
You mean as opposed to other people?
Pretty sure modern (post-WW2) Westerners are the first people in all of history not to be "racist"
>>706103
Louis should have just play along with the new system but noooooooo. Also being the enemy of almost all of Europe did not help
Daily reminder Robespierre did nothing wrong
>La Révolution n'a été rien d'autre qu'une révolution bourgeoise pour mettre fin à la monarchie et accomplir la naissance de la société libérale et bourgeoise dans laquelle le capitalisme des classes bourgeoises et des nobles déchus pourrait s'exprimer sans la tutelle de l'Etat monarchique... Soit en tout libéralisme...
hé Marx, on est plus au XIXe siècle. Il y a bien d'autres lectures pertinentes de 89 que « la prise du pouvoir par les bourges ».
>>706103
CAN'T FLIM FLAM THE NAPMAN
>>706103
communist revolutions ALWAYS spiral out of control
It was a Jewish-Masonic attempt at undermining the French catholic social order that was doomed from the start.
>Robespierre did nothing wrong
Yes he did. And he died for it.
"Only the fall of Robespierre in July of 1794 hindered further leveling plans, which Babeuf in all probability would have realized. So Robespierre planned not only to put all Frenchmen (and women) in uniform (like Mao's "blue ants"), he also planned to raze all church steeples as "undemocratic." They were higher than the other buidlings and as a result stood out because of their "aristocratic" bearing. (In Strassburg, preparations were already underway for the barbaric mutilation of the cathedral there.) Another problem that needed to be solved was the language of the Alsatians, qui ne parlent pas la Iangue républicaine, otherwise known as French. Someone suggested taking the children away from those in Alsace-Lorraine or resettling the entire German-speaking population throughout out all of France. Those were costly plans and as a result a more practical solution was worked out, namely, the complete extermination of the germanophone population. As one can see, the French Revolution was not only interested in the good Doctor Guillotin's deployment of mechanical mass murder, it was also interested in genocide and not only in Alsace but also in other regions of the République Une et Indivisible."
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html
>>710862
>Jewish-Masonic
/pol/ please go
>>711397
>Tell me what happened
>but don't tell me what actually happened
>>711422
>What actually happened was
>Jews
Is this the fabled red pill I hear so much about?
It didn't go far enough pêh
>>711454
You may repeat a lie a thousand times, it won't become the truth; at least you may start believing it yourself.
>>711454
Like who.
I must have missed the part where Robespierre was a jew.
Someone suggested they eat cake
>>710862
>Robespierre
>doing things wrong
Literally chose one
>>706103
>spiral out of control
>a revolution
what do you even mean by that OP?
nothing spiraled out of control, it was a succesful revolution
>>709424
>It only seems out of control from a counter-revolutionary perspective, which lends itself to insurrection against the revolutionary government in the name of 'restoring order'.
>ALL revolutions feature spineless cattle-men, constantly moaning 'toooo faaaar, toooo faaaaaar...', whose desire to hold back and moderate the revolution eventually make them its hangmen.
>That alone is half the reason why 'all' revolutions 'spiral out of control' (become violent).
It only seems that way to petulant revolutionaries who don't want any restraints on their idealistic romp.
>>711840
but seriously, it was a succesful revolution, as a historical event, a revolution gainst a given government, it was not quelled, and the system set up did not collapse, hence, for all intents and purposes, it was a succes and did not at any point 'spiral out of control', this whole thread is dildos
>>711857
Pas'd raisons de s'facher, Amerilarde.
The transition from one order to a new one is prone to chaos, and requires authority. Unfortunately that task fell to Lafayette, who was made head of the National Guard, but who was a soft liberal. He didn't impose order, and just stood by as the crowd marched to Versailles and the Tuileries. By the time he was forced to action it was already far too late, and it ended with him shooting into a crowd causing the September Massacre, which only made things worse.
>>706103
They went into it without any consideration for the long term. The people were so angry(and uneducated) they didn't care who took over after the monarchy as long as they didn't call themselves kings or queens. Then you have people like Robespierre who were educated and ambitious seize power and create a system of rule that favored them.
It is kind of like the Bolshevik Revolution if instead of their one good leader dying and his successor being forced out you Stalin just took over immediately, and a few years later people revolted again and had him killed.
>>706103
Stupid reactionaries legitimizing the rise of leftist radicals.
>>711880
>amerilarde
even rosbif sounds classy as shit as an insult
fuck man why is french so beautiful
>>706345
>Paris. It had for the longest time been the centre of power for the French. Up until the Revolution it had been where the King reigned and was regarded as the axis which spun France.
This is all hilariously wrong. Paris had been the largest city for hundreds of years, but it's not where the king reigned. The king reigned from Versailles. In fact, it's the early revolutionaries who forced him to move from Versailles to Paris, back when they still just wanted a constitutional monarchy, and not a republic.
>>706103
>What caused the French revolution to spiral out of control?
The king's refusal to compromise. I'm not gonna explain everything in details because it would be too long, but basically, as stated above, the revolutionaries at first only wanted a constitutional monarchy. They achieved this goal with consent of the king, but later got in disagreements with him over various things, and he was too unwilling to compromise on many things, so they got rid of him and formed a republic. This is when the revolution became the most radical, during the what they called the Reign of Terror.
After this, France declared war on several European countries in an attempt to spread the revolution, which started the War of the First Coalition, which was won by France. Later on Napoleon took power, and did everything he could to both keep France powerful AND compromise to keep the peace in Europe, but Britain wasn't willing to settle for anything less than France giving away all its conquered territories and going back to 1789 borders. They started 6 coalitions in total to achieve this.
>>709556
>France = gay xDDDD
La révolution française n'est pas une révolution du peuple affamé contre une aristocratie décadente comme on peut le croire. C'est le résultat d'un soulèvement orchestré par la bourgeoisie envers l'aristocratie avec l'aide du peuple. La société actuelle est donc le résultat de ce bouleversement sauf qu'au lieu de trouver l'aristocratie à la tête du pays, nous y trouvons les bourgeois. Bref, la révolution française n'est pas si glorieuse...C'est juste une passation de flambeau. Le peuple est toujours à sa place...
>>712110
>>>/Corée du Nord/
>>711996
Yeah, since Louis XIV moved there in 1682. That's a little over the century of inhabitance by french kings, of which there were three.
I'm pretty sure that "France" is a little older than that.
>>711917
How does wishing to maintain order and tradition justify a bunch of left wing retards killing people?
>>712165
Because order and tradition was already been maintained by the transitional government, which was trying to establish a constitutional, parliamentary monarchy.
But nooo, King Louis the moron had to try his pathetic escape attempt, and white armies had to continue their massacres in eastern France. All of this allowed the Jacobins to gain power.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm the furthest thing possible from a Jacobin. But to not recognize the role of the royalists in turning everyone against the idea of keeping Louis' head is disingenuous.
>>712143
Right, but that doesn't change the fact that Louis XVI didn't initially reign from Paris.
>>712162
Nothing to do with a "crazed mob". It's not mobs who arrested him and ordered his execution. The National Assembly did that. Mobs weren't as widespread or as important in the French revolution as most people think.
>>706103
Look. There's a reason the USA did not come to the aid of the French Revolution, and that was before the night of terror.
>>712194
The National Assembly was still an illegitimate government.
>>712204
There's no such thing as an illegitimate government. Governments exist because they hold power, and people hold power only if they can take and keep it. If the King wanted to keep his government intact, he should have just managed his country and army better.
>>712208
>Governments exist because they hold power, and people hold power only if they can take and keep it
And this is why modernity is unstable. It does not believe in culture or tradition or order, only in "power".
>>712216
It has nothing to do with beliefs, it's just a fact of life and of History, whether you believe in it or not. Plenty of monarchies were founded through conquest as well. Does that make them illegitimate too?
>>712216
>modernity is unstable
>England, a parliamentary democracy has had zero regime changes since 1689
>Russia is on their third system of government in one century alone
>>712222
Conquest is not the same as subversion.
>>712250
Nobody said they were. Your post is pretty meaningless in this context.
>>712194
True, but it's long enough to establish Paris as the historic centre as opposed to Versailles.
>>712018
Sorry for the shitpost maymay, just found a relevant picture friendo ;)
>>706145
* lack thereof
