Explanation: “We should bring back the guillotine” or similar is a common internet quip in response to billionaires doing billionaire things, when in reality the guillotine was invented to provide equal and humane deaths to people of all classes, and from there it was always a tool of the state rather than the people. Not the best euphemism for “we should depose the bourgeoisie.” In fact plenty of Revolutionary justice folks were themselves offed by the guillotine during the Terror.
The idea comes from when it was used against the French royalty.
I mean, the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror are still massive examples of what happens when a lower class is pushed too far, and Madam Guillotine’s show of equality is exactly why it’s a sign of class warfare. No one escapes equality in the National Razor’s basket, whether crowned or common.
mean, the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror are still massive examples of what happens when a lower class is pushed too far,
Not to say elements of “we’re hungry and we’re gonna fuck your shit up if you don’t feed us” weren’t involved, but as a whole I disagree. The Revolution was mostly an example of what happens when your system of government and finance is a century out of date, and the Terror was an authoritarian government using its broad mandate to resolve a national emergency to get rid of political opposition. I mean I do have to acknowledge that this was supported by the hungry Parisians because they wanted food, but reprisal for the Federalist revolts and the Vandee uprising, which created the bulk of Terror victims, had very little to do with that. And given that rich speculators would have the time of their lives just a year later, it feels like the only historically correct response to the guillotine thing is “don’t threaten me with a good time.” I do get what’s being implied, but the image of the guillotine as a tool for the masses to punish their oppressors is build more on myth than reality.
The most radical proponents of the Terror were not the wealthy bourgeoisie, though, but the urban proletariat of the sans-cullotes, and while the Terror was an authoritarian government, it was also an authoritarian government directed largely against foes it considered reactionaries. Not to ignore left-infighting like the guillotining of the Herbertists or the shattering of the titular Enrages (who were, themselves, advocates of the guillotine even towards moderate revolutionaries like the Girondins), but it was not the main thrust of the regime. Under the revolutionary French government, including the period of the Terror, countless men who had considered themselves immune to retribution by a popular government by their association with the established ruling class were given a close-shave with the National Razor, which is what most people are thinking of when they mention Madam Guillotine.
This is not to say “holsum Terror justified 😊” - on the contrary, the Terror was rather counterproductive to its stated goals - but rather that as an expression of the potential for violence against established ruling powers, including deeply entrenched classes like the French aristocracy, it maintains symbolic and factual legitimacy.
As Marx once noted, the revolution of the bourgeoisie is a necessary class struggle that must be won before the revolution of the proletariat. The guillotine was absolutely part of that class struggle. That generally in the modern day people are thinking of moving one step closer to equality than a bourgeois revolution doesn’t change that.
but it was not the main thrust of the regime.
Wasn’t the main thrust of the regime disposing of political opposition of all kinds? I don’t think the Federalists were killed because they were reactionary, and the victims of the immediate aftermath of the Lyon revolt alone outnumber Terror victims in Paris.
but rather that as an expression of the potential for violence against established ruling powers,
I mean, setting aside that for the most part the Terror didn’t target the aristocracy in any significant way (sans the final month or so period not so aptly known as the Great Terror), were the aristocracy or clergy really the established ruling powers? In 1789 sure, maybe even 1790, but by late 1793, let alone early 1974, I think these guys were clearly the former established ruling powers, so I still think alluding to the Terror doesn’t imply a threat to still-in-charge ruling powers. The credit for actually deposing the aristocracy, which was an almost entirely peaceful affair, goes to money (or the lack thereof), the aristocracy (and not in a “bad decisions” kind of way) and the liberal bourgeoisie, respectively.
Wasn’t the main thrust of the regime disposing of political opposition of all kinds? I don’t think the Federalists were killed because they were reactionary, and the victims of the immediate aftermath of the Lyon revolt alone outnumber Terror victims in Paris.
… the Federalists and Lyon revolts were literally reactionary, though.
were the aristocracy or clergy really the established ruling powers? In 1789 sure, maybe even 1790, but by late 1793, let alone early 1974, I think these guys were clearly the former established ruling powers, so I still think alluding to the Terror doesn’t imply a threat to still-in-charge ruling powers. The credit for actually deposing the aristocracy, which was an almost entirely peaceful affair, goes to money (or the lack thereof), the aristocracy (and not in a “bad decisions” kind of way) and the liberal bourgeoisie, respectively.
Considering that the aristocracy and clergy still held immense power, to the point of rallying a continent-wide coalition to reinstall them as well as a civil war to help them along?
I feel very comfortable saying that their execution was the execution of an established ruling power, and that “Government offices are no longer officially monopolized by them for a whole two years” doesn’t really change that.
… the Federalists and Lyon revolts were literally reactionary, though.
I mean… no? They erupted in response to the purge of the Girondins, which wasn’t very revolutionary. Unless you define the revolution to mean Paris, fighting against authoritarian centralisation of power seems very in line with the Revolution even if the leadership of the revolts did tend to have conservative sympathties.
to the point of rallying a continent-wide coalition to reinstall them as well as a civil war to help them along?
That’s… uh… wow. You should revisit the French Revolution and surrounding wars, seriously. For reference, though, the civil war was based in pretty legitimate grievances against Paris authoritarian overreach, the purge of the Girondins for the Federalists and religious oppression+conscription for the Vandee folks. As for the Revolutionary wars, France literally declared war first; everyone else wanted it to collapse in silence so they could focus on Poland. Neither of these were significantly affected by the aristocratic sour grapes.
I mean… no? They erupted in response to the purge of the Girondins, which wasn’t very revolutionary.
The Girondins who were purged for being too far-right for the Jacobins’ tastes? The Girondins who promptly made common cause in the Federalist Revolts with literal royalists?
Unless you define the revolution to mean Paris, fighting against authoritarian centralisation of power seems very in line with the Revolution even if the leadership of the revolts did tend to have conservative sympathties.
Interpreting the French Revolution, an incident sparked by the demands of a national congress for national standardization of representation in a centralized system, as anti-centralization is a very curious take; dismissing the conservativism of the leaders of the opposition is even more curious.
That’s… uh… wow. You should revisit the French Revolution and surrounding wars, seriously.
Are we going to ignore the deep interconnected nature of both the European aristocracy and the monarchist regimes of each polity?
For reference, though, the civil war was based in pretty legitimate grievances against Paris authoritarian overreach,
The overwhelming objection was not that Paris’s power was centralized - a matter they were more than happy to support when it suited them - but that the regime in Paris was too radical for their tastes.
Like Confederates barking about “States’ rights”, all it ever really meant was “We aren’t in power and we don’t like that”.
the purge of the Girondins for the Federalists
The purge of the Girondins was a triggering event, but not the basis of the Federalist revolts, which occurred overwhelmingly by the support of the wealthy bourgeoisie which felt the Revolution had gone ‘too far’, in concert with royalist counterrevolutionaries.
and religious oppression+conscription for the Vandee folks.
“Religious oppression” here meaning “Not allowing theocracy to continue”. Sadly something a great many people regard as religious oppression - as seen in Christofascists in the US, and Islamists in Turkiye.
As for the Revolutionary wars, France literally declared war first; everyone else wanted it to collapse in silence so they could focus on Poland. Neither of these were significantly affected by the aristocratic sour grapes.
The threat to declare war was openly and freely made first by the anciens regimes, and armed bodies of emigres not only allowed, but supplied and supported as they built their forces on the borders of France.
The Girondins who were purged for being too far-right for the Jacobins’ tastes? The Girondins who promptly made common cause in the Federalist Revolts with literal royalists?
Yeah, those guys. Even if they were royalists themselves, the central principle of the French Revolution until that point was democracy and opposition to tyranny. Purging democratically elected representatives was a complete break with everything that had come before it during the Revolution; the fact that the party getting purged was right-leaning doesn’t change that. Being opposed to something done by a left-leaning faction doesn’t automatically make one a reactionary.
Interpreting the French Revolution, an incident sparked by the demands of a national congress for national standardization of representation in a centralized system, as anti-centralization is a very curious take;
“Authoritarian” is the keyword here. Authoritarianism was literally the one thing all revolutionaries could agree was bad.
dismissing the conservativism of the leaders of the opposition is even more curious.
That’s because the stated goals of the revolts (restoring the freedom of the Convention) weren’t reactionary, and people of various political views supported—or even fought for) those goals.
The overwhelming objection was not that Paris’s power was centralized - a matter they were more than happy to support when it suited them - but that the regime in Paris was too radical for their tastes.
By “Paris” I don’t mean “Paris from its position as the capital;” I literally just mean Paris the city. The purge was Paris sans culottes enforcing their will over the Convention—and by extension, over the whole country. It was like if DC residents were extralegally deciding who gets to sit in Congress. Would opposing that be reactionary if the people doing the deciding were Marxists? Up until that point the Revolution had put power in the hands of a group of people elected (not 100% democratically) by all of France; the shift from that to a Convention controlled by Paris radicals was very real and not more of the same.
The purge of the Girondins was a triggering event, but not the basis of the Federalist revolts, which occurred overwhelmingly by the support of the wealthy bourgeoisie which felt the Revolution had gone ‘too far’, in concert with royalist counterrevolutionaries.
It was the triggering event that defined the revolts’ stated aims; they can’t be seriously evaluated without taking it into account.
“Religious oppression” here meaning “Not allowing theocracy to continue”.
No? The Civil Constitution of the Clergy and the treatment of refractory priests (overwhelmingly poor parish priests, not rich bishops) were grade A religious oppression. This was the thing that pushed the Vandee towards revolt, and it’s no coincidence that revolt only really ended when this oppression was ended. You could replace Catholicism with any religion and this stuff would still be messed up.
The threat to declare war was openly and freely made first by the anciens regimes
He despised the weakness and the folly of the émigrés and excluded them from his councils. He earnestly desired to avoid a war which might endanger his sister or her husband.
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/French_Revolution,_The
This link also dispels the idea that the “anciens reigmes” (which, BTW, these guys were not united at all) wanted war with France in the next section. The Girondins wanted war (and yes, it was the Girondins that wanted war; Robespierre for example was not impressed with the idea) not to protect France, but to further the Revolution and their own power. It’s ironic that war would prove to be the undoing of both. Also the arguments they made for war did include nebulous Austrian support for monarchism (which, again, was nonexistent; there was no “Austrian Committee”), but also that war would expand French power, export the Revolution, root out counterrevolutionaries, unite the country and cure cancer or something Idfk. This stuff was pure, unadulterated warmongering.
and armed bodies of emigres not only allowed, but supplied and supported as they built their forces on the borders of France.
See the link above.
How was the French revolution not a class war?
I mean, why do you think it was?
The under class quite literally overthrowing the ruling class?
After which they promptly began killing each other.
Just because they had no exit strategy doesn’t mean it didn’t start as a class war.
It didn’t, though. See my previous comment. The French Revolution started as everyone trying to figure out a way to make the bankrupt French Treasury not bankrupt.
Ah yes. I’m sure the starving peasants who did the uprising was very concerned about the treasury and not avoiding starvation by misrule.
Just in case, which uprising are we talking about here?
That is a disingenous description. You are just describing the initial phase, basically even before the Revolution even started. It very quickly escalated to become something very different.
The other person said the French Revolution was a violent uprising by hungry peasants, so by that description even the initial phase should be a violent uprising. If they wanted to make a more nuanced point they should and could have.
Yet to call the entirety of the French Revolution a class war is wrong, see my previous statement.
Why only speak in extremes? The French Revolution was a class war. It was also a great many other things. Requiring that it only be defined by a single trait is diminutive and disparaging to history.
So your point is that the French Revolutionary War was a class war but we shouldn’t define it by that trait?
Why even have words at this point? I should just start grunting emotionally.
Indeed. But parts of were, and the guillotine was certainly used during those.
Like about any workers revolution 🤷 Doesn’t mean it wasn’t a class war.
This meme is spreading misinformation https://theconversation.com/the-french-revolution-executed-royals-and-nobles-yes-but-most-people-killed-were-commoners-200455
I mean, what do you think class war is?
Edit: Open your link, click on the hyperlink of the 20000 number and open the “social incidence” section. It pretty cleanly dismantles the class war interpretation.
complaining about historical inaccuracies while living through a historically significant time where the thing they’re arguing is factually happening
Wasn’t Marie Antoinette guillotined? You know, the spoiled rich royalty that was so out of touch she was famously quoted as saying “Let them eat cake” when told the common people don’t even have bread?
The original phrase, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” (“Let them eat brioche”), was recorded by philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Confessions in 1765, when Marie Antoinette was only nine years old and not yet in France. Rousseau attributed the phrase to “a great princess,” but did not specify who. The quote was later linked to Marie Antoinette as revolutionaries sought to paint her as an out-of-touch foreign queen who did not understand or care about the suffering of ordinary people. A lot of the attitude towards her was influenced by xenophobia (her being from France’ eternal enemy Austria) and misogyny (calling her out for a luxurious life that the entire court, most of them men, were living).
Yeah, and also a weird affair that she wasn’t even involved in. Marie Antoinette wasn’t innocent by any stretch of the imagination, but yeah her execution isn’t what comes to mind when I think “justice”.
Yeah turns out that quote is actually ahistorical, but also she had nothing to do with the food shortages so as far as dealing the ultimate punishment to one’s oppressors goes it’s… eh.
Too high brow. Most don’t care about nuance. People want stark visuals— which rolling heads of the aristocracy satisfy nicely. And it’s literally the only thing most people remember about the French Revolution.
I mean you’re absolutely not wrong in your observation, but it’s been adopted very successfully for its purpose. Certainly the noose, electric chair or lethal injection wouldn’t work nearly as well. Perhaps some pitchforks and torches, but then we’d just be degraded to a mere mob.
My personal favorite symbol is Orcas. My patron saints of climate and class justice. “Eat the rich(‘s wealth/yachts)!” Just out there protecting their families and leveling the playing field. And having fun while they’re at it.
Perhaps some pitchforks and torches, but then we’d just be degraded to a mere mob.
The problem is that’s what it ends up being anyways. The revolution shouldn’t be defined by how you overthrow your oppressors, but how become better than them.
The Pirates today would be super enraged if they learned about this
The Pirate flag, also known as the Jolly Roger today was the ensign flown by a pirate ship preceding or during an attack, during the early 18th century (the latter part of the Golden Age of Piracy). The vast majority of such flags flew the motif of a human skull, or “Death’s Head”, often accompanied by other elements, on a black field, sometimes called the “Death’s Head flag” or just the “black flag”. The skull and crossbones symbol on a black flag – was used during the 1710s by a number of pirate captains, including Samuel Bellamy, Edward England, and John Taylor. It became the most commonly used pirate flag during the 1720s, although other designs were also in use.
The early development team of the Apple Macintosh used a pirate flag to portray a “rebellious” spirit. Before changing to a stylized “P”, Sweden’s Pirate Party used the Jolly Roger as its symbol, which is still used extensively in the Pirate movement.
Not the best euphemism for “rebellious” spirit, and to reform laws regarding copyright and patents since computers have many components that don’t do well in water.
Yeah… Symbols change its meaning over time depending on historic events.
A toothbrush is used for brushing your teeth, but you can also use it for other purposes.
Ikr?
Though you gotta be careful. Anything that hard can damage the colon.
