Just learned from Tariq Ali that the amount of people guillotined in the French revolution was 3,000. Three thousand...

It's probably not a coincidence that these are ordered by how much effort it takes to profit.

>(((Jews)))
Thats not how it works

Fucking ignorant retard, if your family is so poor you resort to eating snails and frogs because your duke doesn't let you hunt game in the lands surrounding your village, you won't sit there content because some noble's son 200 years ago made a pretty painting.

Indeed. The person who would win in a fight owns it.

The man with the ability to totally destroy something owns it.

What the fuck is this argument even doing right now? Are you making some banal appeal to "muh feelings" as if that's at all relevant to what I'm talking about? OP asked why we care about the French Revolution and treat it as a big deal and not various colonial wars and the resulting deaths. I explained it. France and its government is imminently relevant to anyone in the western world today, how many dirt farmers in Burma died because of imperialism could be 1 or 1 million and would make no difference to anyone in the first world.

It's considered a tragedy because other revolutions managed to avoid massacring so many people for no other reason than paranoia and massive insecurity on the part of the revolutionaries. The French revolution was an obvious case of the revolution getting carried away and going mad with power, become worse tyrants than the ones they deposed.

And no, I'm not a monarchist or a neo-reactionary who longs for feudalism, I'm quite happy living in a liberal democracy and having both economic and political liberty. Which is the reason I despise fascists as well as communists.

The person who acquired it through previously agreed up on legal means owns it in the eyes of the law which all consenting parties hold to be valid. The law, of course, is maintained by force, so if you want to get down to it yes ownership is backed by violence. In the sense that if you attempt to steal other people's property (as all communists inevitably do) they will kill you.

Unless the contract or law proves to be wrong. In that case the wrong owners will be backed up by force. You say communists do this, but you must know that it's all governments ever. Communists have the temerity to do it to the rich.

Lmao stay buttmad,the revolution was the best thing to happen to French culture and history, the bourbon monarchy was stagnant and their country was failing. Still insignificant compared to other historical events in Western Europe like the revolt of the Dutch.

>Just learned from Tariq Ali
>Why are right-wingers such fucking pussies
>some fatcat aristocrats getting their comeuppance
>some queen who starved her people

I'll give you a 6/10,

If you're opposed to shady clique of inbred perverts running the world at the expense of everybody else, then my friend monarchism is not for you

Just learned from Thomas Woods that the amount of people executed in the Spanish Inquisition was 3,000. Three thousand. It was approximately as deadly as 9/11.

Why are left-wingers such fucking pussies that they're STILL angry about some heretics getting their comeuppance 440 years ago? Why must we pretend that the execution of some witch who cursed some people is one of the great tragedies of mankind?

And why are the rest of us so foolish that we think this one judicial system is a tragedy, but the tens of millions of other innocents killed in communist mass killings don't deserve to be remembered?

Communists just steal from whoever has the most property, that is how they have always operated and how they continue to operate to this day. At the end of the day communists have no respect for laws or rights, they are simply greedy, materialistic, and insecure. Which is why they have no scruples and simply steal whatever they feel they "deserve".

>about how the French Revolution destroyed the old aristocratic orders.
The monarchy was restored, and conservatism strengthened after Napoleons defeat -orangutan

So you support communism once workers seize the economy?

>and conservatism strengthened after Napoleons defeat

Yeah, that's why revolutions spawned in all europe less than two decades later....

>no other reason than paranoia and massive insecurity on the part of the revolutionaries.
I'm sure their complicity in the Ancien Regime had nothing to do with their executions

>French revolution
>Right wingers.
The Left and Right dichotomy was born in the French revolution.

For the Monarchs, both left/right belong in the same shitheap of populist pandering and mass hysteria.

People who died from guillotines in Paris may have numbered 3,000 but everywhere in France the death toll was much much higher. Hundreds of thousands died in the vendeé and other royalist areas.

And in France.

>Hundreds of thousands died in the vendeé and other royalist areas.
And over a million people died during the Second American war of Independence.

>le (((meme)))
hahaha (((le))) so le (((funny))) le (((funny meme))) is so funny because ((())) XDDDD(((DDD)))!!!!!

Peasants by the 18th century were pretty miserable.

Liberals hate communism. What are you on about?

go fuck yourself

Actually it was about 600,000.

the vendee shits deserved it

...

Peasants have always been generally miserable, which is why tens of thousands of them revolted every year or so

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts

Most /pol/ types sincerely believe that Hillary Clinton and the Party for Socialism and Liberation are on the same team

ITT: Why I fucking DESPISE leftists.

You are you fucking kikes, nobody is falling for that "they weren't REAL communists" shit anymore.

And then the Jew Muslim Soros Cultural marist Wizard, Soros turned them all into mixed race transexuals and ruled the world for a thousand years

Hillary Clinton is farther from communism than Dwight D Eisenhower you fucking manchild

Hold on are you saying Hillary Clinton, the world's most famous neoliberal, advocates communism?

was the french revolution really like that? and europeans call themselves civilised..

All social democrats are just varying forms of gradualist. No matter how much /leftypol/ koolaid you drink far away from reality, this is still true. No matter how many times you cry "m-muh clintonomics" this is still true. Stop pushing for UBI.

Clinton isn't a social democrat, but even if she was social democracy exists only to preserve capitalism. It's an explicitly counter-revolutionary proposal, which helps proletarians on the terms of the bourgeois state and seeks to protect property through use of the carrot rather than the stick.

No social democracy has ever blossomed into something more radical.

>amount of people guillotined
Ok, what about the lynchings, rapes, and run of the mill politically motivated murders that aren't public?

Yeah none of that shit flies as an argument if you don't already buy into the legitmacy of Marxist theory as a premise, which we don't.

>No social democracy has ever blossomed into something more radical.
Venezuela, your argument is invalid.

>No social democracy has ever blossomed into something more radical.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Social_Democratic_Labour_Party
>The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP; Russian: Poccи́йcкaя coциáл-дeмoкpaти́чecкaя paбóчaя пápтия (PCДPП), Rossiyskaya sotsial-demokraticheskaya rabochaya partiya (RSDRP)), also known as the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party or the Russian Social Democratic Party, was a revolutionary socialist political party formed in 1898 in Minsk to unite the various revolutionary organizations of the Russian Empire into one party. The RSDLP later split into Majority and Minority factions, with the Majority (in Russian: "Bolshevik") faction eventually becoming the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Interdistrictites were also formed from this party.

How do you know if a Marxist is lying to you?

The Russian social democratic party was crested before social democracy and socialism meant two different things. In fact, this distinction emerged BECAUSE many second international socialists didn't want something as radical as what the Marxists in the Russian social democratic party were trying to build.

This party was dominated by socialists who stated their aims clearly. They never tried to trick the public by promising something less radical; in fact their Marxist rhetoric described a future society far more radical than what actually existed in the Soviet Union.

Hillary Clinton is a status quo capitalism who very proudly supports capitalism and benefits from that hierarchy. There's no meaningful comparison between her and somebody like Lenin or Kalinin.

Venezuela is the opposite of what you're describing.

Here, socialists seized control of the country in a popular revolution but didn't build anything other than an authoritarian social democracy where the vast majority of capital is still privately held.

>Hillary Clinton is a..
Hillary Clinton is an unprincipled politician that doesn't actually believe in anything other than amassing power. Marxists societies have always been full of those. If her base demands Marxism she will support Marxism.

most of the people were not kill by guillotine :( , learn my history before speaking

Hillary Clinton isn't loyal to her base, she's loyal to her donors.

Remember the Vendee

Feelsbadman