Was the French revolution a good thing?

As far as adopting the values of the French revolution? No. Russia never did that, as I implied. Neither did Prussia to an extent.

As for the most successful country, you only prove my point. GB didn't sperg out like the French. The rest of Europe didn't gain much from having the Old order foisted away from them beyond their will.

The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few

>GB didn't sperg out like the French
They did, they just did so earlier. More than 100,000 people died in the English Civil Wars

The values of the Enlightenment are intertwined with the values of capitalism and meritocracy over aristocracy. Russia was the only major absolute monarchy left in Europe by 1914.

this, it was the Christian basis that led to a non-violent regime change.
*tips Communist Manifesto
>wonders at the use of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

there's a certain degeneracy that accompanies atheism, materialism (economic) and blind progressivism (tradition should be spurned and burned mentality)
Sort yourself out,kid.

>Neither did Prussia to an extent
Prussia was one of the country's that most heavily borrowed from the French Revolution

Yes, the birth of nationalism and the death of a static aristocratic caste system was great for the vast majority of the population.

The tenets of the Revolution were betrayed though, as with time national interests slowly shifted to individual interests, which pretty much led to a new oligarchic system.

>Also a reminder the values of the French revolution hadn't effected parts of central Europe, Eastern Europe and Southeastern Europe as severely
They did eventually, and these are the shittiest parts of Europe, so I don't really see how that is an argument for the influence of the French Revolution being negative.

Not at all.
Why are those things good?

Not the values so much. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

They absolutely did though. Read up on the Prussian reform movement.

>everything i don't like is duhgenewacy

I think Bismark adopted the liberals demands into the government constitution in a realpoltick move to take the wind out of the reformers sails

Nothing french is ever good

No, it's immoral to rebel against your king. Also it led to atheism and moral decay.

>"Why are these things good?" he types from his computer (a product of technological progress, free communication guaranteed by the legal right to free speech) in his house (protected by a strict legal code and law enforcement which punishes crimes against person and property after a trial with due process), while living in a country not ravaged by war (product of diplomacy and globalization making great powers reliant on each other).

Not an argument.

>degeneracy
>moral decay

If you're using the conventional definitions of those terms, the Revolutionaries were surely less degenerate and immoral than their predecessors. The ancien regime privileged orders were deviant as fuck, while Robespierre and his crew were downright puritanical

>my family has to survive on one loaf of bread a month and i have no way to air my grievances other than through the effectively powerless third estate

>at least we're not degenerate atheists

But you see, it's better for most of the population to be miserable if it means they are forced to follow *my* wonderful special snowflake ideas about what is morally right

goat historical event tbqh

It's still immoral to rebel.

Louis XVI ended the state monopoly on grain and made bread cheaper, he was a good man and a good king and the people were wrong to betray him.

>It's still immoral to rebel.
Why?

They didn't; they rebelled against the lords. Louis would have been fine if he didn't try to escape to Austria.

>It's still immoral to rebel.
Even if your king is immoral?

When a monarch messes up, it is the peoples right to depose him.

>Louis XVI ended the state monopoly on grain and made bread cheaper, he was a good man and a good king
Is it weird if I actually agree with this, but still think the French Revolution was good? Like, Louis XVI seems like a nice guy and a decent, if indecisive, ruler, but nevertheless the form of government he represented was illegitimate and needed to be annihilated, and he just had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time

Christ told us to obey earthly authorities

Yes, Aquinas lays it out pretty well that you should practically never rebel

No

>unironically thinks the reign of terror regime was more illegitimate than the ancient regime of France.

But muh liberty, equality and fraternity...

I believe the exact of opposite of that, though. Monarchy is an inherently illegitimate form of government, and the Reign of Terror was based.

% chance that this user refers to other people as "cucks"?

0%, not an alt-right weenie

Literal slave mentality

Paradoxically the less you care about being a slave the more free you will be

Remember, this literal downie had the right to govern as an absolute monarch because jeeeesus said so

>Christ told us to obey earthly authorities
and Moses led the exodus out of Egypt, where his people were treated unjustly, if that's not an act of rebellion I don't know what is

The difference being that Moses obeyed God whereas the revolutionaries murdered clergy.

% chance that this user refers to other people as "nazis"?

clergy who were intertwined with the plutocracy that exploited god's suffering and poor people

That's a pretty walk back from your original position that rebellion is never justified, but anyway the clergy hardly spoke for God.

The revolutionaries were honestly more godly than the average ancien regime clergyman, and probably included a roughly similar proportion of atheists

There was no plutocracy

>That's a pretty walk back from your original position that rebellion is never justified

Thomas Aquinas does give us one condition where rebellion can be justified, but it was not the case with the French Revolution

>The revolutionaries were honestly more godly than the average ancien regime clergyman, and probably included a roughly similar proportion of atheists

No one who goes around murdering people and turning the country upside-down can be called "godly"

>No one who goes around murdering people and turning the country upside-down can be called "godly"
The ancien regime had been doing that for hundreds of years

Not really, no. Care to provide examples?

The clergy suffered the same fate the aristocracy, the divine thunderbolts of the peoples will,they were dropped back into the void for failing their duties

but that's okay because muh divine right

Surely if rebellion is never justified, then I guess the Terror was mostly okay, since they were mostly killing rebels

The ancien regime had capital punishment too, and executed plenty of people for a whole variety of reasons, including treason (which was what most people executed in the Terror were executed for). There had also been numerous civil wars in French history, mostly caused by the aristocracy.

There is nothing wrong (in principle) with capital punishment, but there is a lot wrong with overthrowing the government. With civil wars, while they may or may not be unjust, people are still required to obey authority except when they're told to do immoral things. Even then it's still wrong to overthrow the government.

Most of the people executed in Revolution were executed because they were trying to overthrow the government

There is nothing wrong with opposing a revolution

There is nothing wrong with executing the will of the people

Executing the will of the people isn't a legitimate reason to overthrow a government

More legitimate than opposing a just revolution

The monarchy originally came to power through overthrowing a previous government too, y'know. In that sense the revolutionaries were opposing a revolution

Revolutions are almost never just

The monarchy had been in power for nearly 1000 years and at the end of the day a Christian monarchy is still a Christian monarchy

>Was the single most destructive event in the entire history of humanity a good thing?
Gee I don't know.

Putting aside your religious bias, the King broke his contract with the people when he ruined the countries economy, causing starvation and hardship. The people have the right to remove an unjust ruler.

Jesus Christ, arguing with you is like a brick wall. "x is wrong because god and the king say it is wrong regardless of what's actually going on in the country at the time and because some undefinable degeneracy"

huwhat

>The monarchy had been in power for nearly 1000 years and at the end of the day a Christian monarchy is still a Christian monarchy
Very weak argument. What's the statute of limititations on revolution? How many years do you have to be in power before it's no longer okay to oppose you? The monarchy had definitely seen violent seizures of power more recently than 1000 years BTW

Why say you oppose all revolt when you clearly only oppose it when it is against governments you like, but are okay with it when its governments you don't? Your last statement admits as much.

My bad, second most destructive, the most destructive was the founding of the United States of America in 1776 (which directly inspired the French Revolution).

You miswrote "single most constructive event in the entire history of humanity"

>The people have the right to remove an unjust ruler

No they don't

Wars are going to happen, people seize power, etc. but replacing one Christian monarchy with another is not the same as turning the entire system around with something evil like with the French revolution. It isn't good to cause strife, but it's far worse to attack monarchy and Christianity itself.

lmao stay mad britbongs

Long live the United States, and long love our sister republic, our oldest ally, France!

So suddenly it's not that revolt is inherently bad, just that the revolt lead to something bad. That's called "shifting the goalposts"

Certainly. Without it we wouldn't have capitalism, and without capitalism we wouldn't have socialism in the coming decades.

Not British, just an European who can see the unrepairable damage done by liberalism and democracy, which also spawned socialism and communism.

Revolt is inherently bad, some revolts are worse than others.

>unrepairable damage done by liberalism and democracy
such as?

So, if all revolt is bad, and you admit that the monarchy was born of revolt, then surely it was illegitimate on that basis?

Massive advancements in technology, agriculture, and medicine, the end of wars between great powers, and peaceful transfer of power. The horror!

The Bourbon monarchy was not born out of revolt.

>we're witnessing the fall of Rome all over again.
t. hundreds of thousands of people at various points over the past 1500 years

>democracy and liberalism causing the fall of rome
Non sequitur

>we're witnessing the fall of Rome all over again.

Peaceful mode of production change? Where? Or do you mean "balkanization"? Where?

Also, the crisis we're currently in is the result of capitalism's structure, and has nothing to do with ideology.

Other than the aforementioned socialism and communism, we're witnessing the fall of Rome all over again. A long new Dark Age is awaiting us.

The French monarchy certainly was

>house of bourbon's reign in 1780s
>originated with revolt

Pick one

I wonder where all the Roman abstract art was during its fall.

The House of Bourbon was a branch of the House of Valois, which was a branch of the Capetians, which originated in revolt. The Capetians overthrew the Carolingians, who themselves had overthrown the Merovingians, who themselves had overthrown the Romans

>The Capetians overthrew the Carolingians

No, the Capetians were elected by the nobles after the Carolingians died out.

Most likely scattered across the floor of a banquet after an orgy.

>freedom is slavery

Not being so attached to the world and your status in it is freedom

Not originally. That is what happened in 987, but the first Capetian to sit in the throne of France was Odo who became King in 888 when the Carolingian Charles the Fat was deposed. It was through him that the later Capetian claim was based.

Either way, it all goes back to revolt at some point

That's apathy.

If you redefine words, they can mean anything you want.

If the Carolingians are all gone and Hugh Capet is elected king then you can hardly say the Bourbons were a result of revolt. There isn't really any alternative at that point but to accept the House of Capet.

No, not being too attached to the world doesn't mean you don't care about it at all.