/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain’t driving twenty minutes to riot"

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join the Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org Visit the Booru: https://lefty.booru.org/

(242.11 KB 1200x1200 napoleon-i-9420291-2-402.jpg)
Would you say Napoleon was good or evil? Anonymous 09/16/2020 (Wed) 15:37:48 No. 873215
Was he a historical hero or historical villain?
Fuck the haters. I’m on team Bonaparte. imo he was more revolutionary than Robespierre and his buddies. Napoleon was forward thinking and did a lot to reform the legal systems of Europe. The French revolutionaries were reactionary and obsessed with antiquity. they wanted to go back to some ancient Greek ideal as embodied in Sparta
World history on horseback.
>>873215 Anyone that subscribes to this "good/evil" or "hero/villain" mythology is an idiot.
>>873221 Basically: American revolution and Napoleon overthrew feudalism in order to install bourgeois government, so they were authentically revolutionary for their time. French Revolution overthrew feudalism in order to go further back to antiquity, so they were crypto-reactionaries
>>873225 This. That's why I divide the world into based/cringe.
>>873221 Was Napoleon III a farce because he was a faggot who didn't do that?
>>873225 If good and evil dont exist how do we know right from wrong?
(72.04 KB 1200x900 Max_Stirner-1200x900-cropped.jpg)
>>873233 Who cares?
>>873230 Napoleon III is a kind of underrated historical character. Very interesting to read about. Definitely had less world historical impact than the first Napoleon but he was a really decisive figure in 19th century French history and European politics with regard to German and Italian unification.
>>873215 Napoleon was like Stalin, so I can't hate him. To be more precise, Stalin was a mix between Napoleon and the Jacobin period of France. The latter history deviates, since Stalin won his wars.
>>873215 It's hard to say because good/evil would just be hindsight. He inherited war and a chaotic time where all of Europe wanted to get rid of him but he was too highly skilled for them. As good in history as Alexander and Caesar. In the end he got too arrogant, Borodino is a good example where he just throws a mass of soldiers straight at the enemy. Socially I've heard his Napoleonic code was good. Someone else here might have better opinions on this part though.
Undoubtedly revolutionary. People complain he installed monarchies but he still overthrew feudalism. Only sad part was fhat his defeat allowed the Anglo to become the world hegemon for the next 100 years.
He was a based radical liberal and crypto monbol as well
>>873243 The Code I think is good to the extent that it basically set up the framework for the modern liberal state and property relations. On the other hand certain clauses in the code like the equal inheritance of property are possible explanation for France’s demographic stagnation in the 19th century, as peasants had less children in order to stop the division of their property after death.
He thought he was Caesar but ended up being Alexander. Cool guy either way.
>>873245 Well earlier in his career as a republican general he did set up sister republics in northern and central Italy, which he later made into kingdoms. It’s just a symptom of his increasing belief that a restored monarchy might give his regime legitimacy (in addition to the gains of the Revolution he thought worth keeping)
>>873251 Ironically his ambitious, imperial attitude basically cleaned up much of Western Europe's remaining feudal institutions in one swoop even if they devastated France in the end, and it is why historians will argue on whether he was a net positive for France/Europe or a net negative, but I think when you consider the fact that his bloody and destructive wars ultimately decimated old aristocratic power in western Europe, for any revolutionary it was a net positive. He could have consolidated and had more of a new neutrality with the rest of Europe, but he kept fucking going. That endless series of conflicts ultimately did a lot to drain the power and wealth of the old regimes, which would succumb to liberalism that much quicker. France suffered some great losses through Napoleon, but who gives a shit about France tbh.
>>873215 If he existed today a lot of people would call him a fascist.
>>873285 > If he existed today a lot of people would call him a fascist. If he existed today he would wonder how we got people inside the tv boxes
>>873285 If he existed today he'd be some random Corsican goat farmer.
>>873285 If he existed today he WOULD be a fascist. He was revolutionary for his time, but today he would be extremely reactionary. Bourgeois politics under a regimented militaristic regime is basically fascism. Still, for HIS TIME he was revolutionary
>>873257 Legitimacy was a fool's errand, the old guard was never going give it. The Hébertists had a better point in why deal with the Catholic church when you can simply purge them and redistributed their ill gotten wealth to the people. >>873304 If Napoleon existed today he would be butthurt with Georgy Zhukov using artillery power to simply smash the enemy with overwhelming firepower rather, with maneuver warfare taking place on a much larger strategic level enveloping entire field armies along a front line consisting of army groups.
>>873285 Some already do but these aren't people educated on what fascism even is but just like slinging it around. He was an excellent commander but this isn't enough to make him fascist considering the coalitions were declared on him, Russia being his offensive war. Not just this but he didn't bring any fascist social characteristics to France. All in all the only people saying it are trying to say mass war casualties = fascism, but this isn't enough because the only thing Napoleon did was be successful at war. So for him not to get labeled it looks like he would have had to surrender when the third coalition England funded got started against him. This doesn't make any sense and that's why Napoleon isn't "fascist" at all. Even asking the question if he were alive today isn't worth it.
>become president of French Academy of Sciences >eliminate the nascent experimental Borda Count and force them back to Plurality Voting method >conquer Venice >eliminate centuries of Approval Voting to select the city leader and force Plurality Vote He was a total fucking brainlet and the entire world of French and English colonial governmental ancestry is still living in the wake of his hostility to alternative voting methods.
(430.80 KB 450x450 reallyjogginsthenoggin.png)
Summing up the arguments in this thread The solution to feudalism is a bigger king. I guess Augustus was a real progressive force in history too then, huh?
>>873238 Based
>>873245 A french hegemony would not have been better. They both would have been similar strains of unrestrained capitalism. Besides, the hegemon under the british empire was the french norman anyway :^)
>enlightenment by the sword Based
(11.61 KB 600x463 USA2plur2004.png)
(17.19 KB 600x463 USA2range2004.png)
(22.46 KB 600x463 USAav2004.png)
I think from now on I'm going to start referring to Plurality/first-past-the-post voting as "the Napoleon System" to really drive home what a regressive piece of shit it is.
>>873384 The solution to feudalism is capitalism. It literally makes no difference what outward form the state takes. Feudalism is a mode of production as much as a state system. Capitalism is a mode of production which is alienated from civic/state life so it can exist under any state, whether a representative republic or a monarchy. This is very basic stuff, my dude
Napoleon was literally bourgeois Stalin. He was a pure embodiment of abstract human progress. Anybody who hates him is a cuck. He gives britbonger royalists nightmares to this day. Every proper communist should have masturbated to completion to pic related at least once.
>>873384 >The solution to feudalism is a bigger king. Yeah, if the bigger king makes all the old feudal rights illegal and enshrines private property and more equal market participation as a principle. The Napoleonic Code that was instituted throughout Europe ended feudal rights to collect rents, and even broke up some of the old burgher institutions in the towns like the guild system. Napoleon basically extended liberal social relations throughout Europe, but out of a mixture of ambition and pragmatism (in his view) he maintained the autocratic states.
>>873404 >>873411 Feudalism was bound to collapse at one point or another when the steam engine was invented and they ran out of wood as an energy source. Saying that Napoleon made it all happen is Great Man theory and a decidedly un-material take on history.
>>873384 >I guess Augustus was a real progressive force in history too then, huh? Unironically yes, senatorial bickering almost destroyed Rome. Republican system ceased functioning after Carthaginian wars.
all the napoleon is stalin posters need gulag
>>873420 >senatorial bickering It was a centuries-long class war punctuated by periodic secessions of the plebs and the privatization of public farm land. Augustus merely helped the optimates win.
>>873407 >>873411 >>873423 >all the napoleon is stalin posters need gulag prove how we're wrong. Protip: you can't.
>>873418 Nigga who cares if it was historically inevitable or whatever, Napoleon was the literal vehicle. The Jacobins were the radical democrats and they were unable to maintain power. It was Napoleon that consolidated the revolution and extended it. That doesn't mean anybody is claiming Napoleon came out of the ether and whisked liberalism into existence like a prime mover. He was still contingent, but he was the one that did it. Understanding that means understanding Napoleon was the manifestation of that progressive force. The fact he kept autocracy was also emergent from historical contingencies, but who cares? It makes clear that the autocracy was irrelevant at the time for the more complete formation of the bourgeois social order.
(148.89 KB 1200x960 Innovation.png)
Napoleon recreated an aristocracy after the Jacobins went to all the trouble of cutting all the aristocrats' heads off. Fuck Napoleon forever.
>good >evil Spooked
>>873436 Democracy is not conducive to the act of universal revolution as it turns out. Cause you kinda give the reactionaries a legal mean to oppose the revolution. Until reactionaries are purged, the suspension of democracy is fine.
>>873215 he was a reactionnary, but someone else would have taken his place to calm down the revolutionary. At least his military skills allowed the revolution to spread through europe
>more revolutionary than Robespierre and his buddies hope you're not french, or you're an uneducated retard
>>873438 Exactly, I don't even know what the dispute really is. If the question is was Napoleon a progressive historical force, the answer has to be yes. He was less radical than the Jacobins, but the Jacobins decisively lost. That was a fact of history, complaining about it is just moralistic resentment. But Napoleon undeniably changed the legal order of western Europe to be favorable to bourgeois society. That means he was a progressive historical force under the Marxist conception. It is just a matter of fact. I mean I think Napoleon is a really interesting and obviously exceptional person, but I don't really get the need to cast him as good or evil here. He did disagreeable things, but overall he spread the conditions of bourgeois dominance.
>>873436 >Napoleon recreated an aristocracy after the Jacobins went to all the trouble of cutting all the aristocrats' heads off. Fuck Napoleon forever. Historic materialism. Progress cannot be achieved by decree. Jacobin period, like any revolutionary romanticism, ended only in defining boundaries for pragmatic politics.
>>873279 this, he is a faggot for declaring himself emperor, he is based for smashing other monarchs
>>873225 /thread
>>873215 We are beyond such notions.
>>873463 based Nietzschean communism??
>>873443 Not really, during the revolutionary period he only helped in Italy but it was already during the directory reactionary period and the setup as a sister republic wasn't really revolutionary. Then he lost all of his army in Egypt and abandoned them. He also won most of his political power by crushing a proletarian revolt in Paris. Truth is Napoleon was a fuck up who knew his way around propaganda and palace intrigue.
>>873215 He turned the republic into a monarchy so greater evil.
>>873428 socialism was built under one of them faggotnegger
>>873442 Electoral systems are not democracy.
>>873540 >2020 >paying attention to the superficial exterior facade of the state instead of the relations to the means of production ishygddt
(15.80 KB 488x305 Achievement.jpg)
>>873570 >reintroducing the aristocratic ruling class after its relationship to the means of production had been eradicated is superficial
>>873598 It makes absolutely no different what form the state takes. Under capitalism an aristocrat is just a inheritable bureaucrat. In practice most of our politicians and bureaucrats come from families that have been doing it for generations anyway
>>873560 Napoleon destroying the vestiges of feudalism across Europe and instituting rational government/free-market capitalism was essential to allowing Socialism to develop in the first place. You can't go straight from A to Z, the productive forces need evolve. It's Marxism 101.
>mega-imperialist Bad
>>873221 >The French revolutionaries were reactionary and obsessed with antiquity. They wanted to go back to some ancient Greek ideal as embodied in Sparta You're way off the mark. Read Lefebvre. By your logic, Marxists & other revolutionary socialists are ultrareactionaries because we want to build an egalitarian society whose ideals were embodied in neolithic hunter-gatherer communities.
>>873772 >Khmer Roguetard flag checks out
>>873789 I'm not way off, the French revolutionaries worshipped Spartan like poverty. Socialism and capitalism both at least have in common that they value prosperity, socialism is just better at making it available to all. The French Revolutionaries thought it was more "virtuous" to be frugal and lead a "Spartan" existence. Peak reactionaries
>>873800 Personally, I think that if they had stayed in power they would have created some pseudo-"virtuous" agrarian society
I think questions of good and evil are irrelevant when you´re talking about history on horseback
>good or evil? lawful neutral
>>873813 Launching multiple coups disqualifies you from Lawful, maybe true neutral
>>873233 we dont because those things dont exist either
>>873821 He was definitely true neutral. He was not motivated by desire for goodness and virtue any more than he was by greed or hunger for power. None of those things affected him. He was a fucking force of nature
>>873225 OP BTFO
(269.56 KB 840x1080 20200819_232946.jpg)
>>873438 I’m a communist because communism is heroic and communists were actually heroes
>>873444 I’m not French, like 90% of this board
>>873875 Based
>>873233 how benefitial a certain action is to humanity btw ppl who reject morality are just children
>>873606 >just an inherited bureaucrat See: The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
>>873973 I haven't read it yet, so can you just say what your point is?
(74.04 KB 1366x768 Morality.jpg)
>>873970 Yes, because morality only justifies kind and predominantly beneficial actions.
>>873991 Man was put on this world to help one another :)
>>873997 I agree friend :)
>was bonapartism a necessary historical moment? >where the results of bonapartism progressive or conservative? >did it ultimately go us closer to communism? heroes and villians are archetypes that don't translate perfectly into reality but answering this questions can at least justify supporting certain individuals as tools of the colective
>>873991 what did he meant by this bros?
>>873800 They were idealists but they were not reactionaries. Human beings have a tendency to look to the past for a model of the future, as I said before even scientific socialists did this. If they idealized the immediate past (the Capetian order, the reign of Louis XIV, etc.) and sought to reinforce the strength of the monarchy or the aristocracy, they would've been reactionaries.
>>873238 Thou art based.
>>873239 also he built modern paris
>>874310 With his bare hands?
>>873340 Are you saying Napoleon hated artillery or not? Cause if the former youd be a brainlet as Bappy started off as an officer in the artillery corps and made innovations or deepened those already adopted by the republican military
>>874317 With his bare penis actually.
>>873340 hate to be the akshually guy but Napoleon's maneuvering was done before armies even reached the field of battle, and one of his innovations was the grand battery where all available guns in a certain region would be redeployed to fire en masse at a portion of the enemy line, he would've loved Zhukov and Katyushas and shit
>>873487 The Italian sister republics were actually pretty successful, despite having to pay tributes to France. They were led by Italian jacobin factions who introduced lots of enlightenment and centralizing reforms across northern and central italy. They were the first taste of a unified and well run italian state
>>874329 Also Napoleon put down a royal uprising not a proletarian one to protect the directory from a reactionary revival after the Terror slackened with the Thermidorean reaction. Nappy’s whiff of grapeshot BTFO them https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Vend%C3%A9miaire
>>873570 The means of production didnt really change under napoleon, some parts of norther and eastern france did develop industry but nothing like England was experiencing at the time. France would remain a peasant country until the 20th century
>>873800 No they didn't. Only Saint Juste did. Robespierre did not admire it as much and his famous speech on political virtue said that he did not want to model France “in the Spartan mold”. The Jacobins had lots of different ideas and influences outside antiquity and to hone in on this fact is a caricature. You sounds like Benjamin Constant in his “Liberties: Ancient and Modern”
>>873832 He was obsessed with Glory though. An ideological trait of Bonapartism is love of individual and national glory as embodied by Bonaparte’s military victories
>>873867 Was Napoleon rural gang?


no cookies?