Why did the French revolution fail?

Because they started to involve litteral peasents who had no idea what it was about and the revandication went from
>abolish class privileges and give the people the representation they deserve
to
>burn all churches, kill all nobles

>>290771

Name three revolutions that haven't.

>>290771
did it? it changed the world unreversably

>>290771
It didn't, the bourgeoisie took power, and despite temporary setbacks, managed to hold on to it.

File: The-Hopes-of-the-Party-Gillray.jpg (189KB, 613x442px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 613x442px

>>290771
It didn't fail. It succeeded in creating something even more important than a republic in France: modern politics.

>>290771
Most countries in Europe are democracies with parliaments and kings and queens in all monarchies are impotent to affect country's politics in any way. All European countries follow principle of "equality before law".

I'd say French Revolution was pretty successful.

Too radical atm tbqh family

>>290771
The french revolution ended the feudal system and church power in France, and in most Europe

Sure Monarchy still exists in Europe after the French revolution, but it has to deal with the consequences of the revolution, the 1848 revolution

thermidorians

>>290771

It didn't, and that's the problem.

>>290771
>>292087
>>293161
>>292127

go read De Tocqueville

>>290771
It had no real ideology or set goals, it was more just a cluster fuck that a social group would grab onto, run with for a while and then be executed for being enemies of the revolution.

>>290946
Haitian Revolution
Agricultural Revolution
Industrial Revolution

>>293191
I got really pissed when I saw Haitian revolution, kek'd when I realized that I'd been had.

>>290946
American Revolution, October Revolution, Chinese Revolution

File: San_Domingo.jpg (141KB, 800x642px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 800x642px

>>293519
Stay mad, Frenchman.

Just remember it was Haiti that ended your dreams of empire.

File: 1382820416325.jpg (92KB, 464x787px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 464x787px

How can something with no innate goal, fail.
>>290776
Why do classes not deserve "privileges"?
And how do you define "proper representation"?
The problem is now we only elect whoever can manipulate their way to rule (sociopaths), and not people who genuinely care for their people.

because louis xvi a fool

Because a revolution is a political expression of human society's natural tendency to disorder, so when it gains a monopoly on power and all restrictions on it are removed, it acts towards the logical conclusion implicit in its philosophy of action: the dissolution of all social order. No matter their underying ideology, what all revolutions boil down to is power being transferred from established social order to the whims of armed thugs. The consequences of this should be obvious.

File: joseph de maistre.jpg (10KB, 178x266px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 178x266px

>>293626
>t. joseph

File: 1445464590688.png (693KB, 1685x977px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1685x977px

>>290771
>Why did the French revolution fail?
it was successful and ended when the fifth republic has been accepted by every party.

>>293585
>Why do classes not deserve "privileges"?
Mostly because said privileges were inherited from feudal times. the nobility system was outdated and pretty much needed to be reformed otherwise it would potentially have held the country's devlopment back. the privileges of the clergy wre also a potential problem since they led to some heavy corruption in some cases.
Then again, with some noblemen of ishops using their brains, it was all still viable but that still was a minor part of the overall situation.
The claim that class privileges should be abolished or at least reformed was mostly caused by venality and heredity of offices (officer posts in the army were reserved to people of noble origin OR could be bought at a high price regardless of military knowledge) and class taxes (that the clergy was pretty much entirely exampt of despite owning a lot of land and goods all over the country)

>And how do you define "proper representation"?
Part of the issue is that they didn't. The only thing close to proper representation there was at the time were the general state, an assembly of the nobility, clergy and third estate that the king was allowed to call as he wished and that he could consult. They had no power in any way since the king had complete right to veto any of their decision.
Having the british example close to us and being vastly documented while it became a constitutional monarchy with parlementary representation did not help either.

>literally founded the Modern Era
>the entire world today is built according to principles of the French Revolution

How in the fuck did it fail?

File: 1447295251943-1.png (449KB, 511x515px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 511x515px

>>293531
>American Revolution

>>290771
It didn't.

>>294481
How come France-sempai got to have more revolutions after its government became corrupt? Why can't we have a gubbament that represents us and not the interests of our aristocratic overlords (blessed be their commodities and praise be unto them)?

>>294850
Because Burgeristan is much larger and had third world transportation and communication during the years it was still unstable.
Also
>civil war

>>294850
>implying America hasn't always been more meritocratic than Europe

File: Haitian_Revolution(1).jpg (569KB, 1395x1032px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1395x1032px

>>293537

>>290771
>failed
nigga what the fuck, do we still live in feudalism?

File: 1447283030662.jpg (157KB, 636x720px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 636x720px

>>297414
>feudalism
>implying

>>297994
>I got up here because of slavery
>implying whites gave blacks slaves of their own

>>293537
I'm Hungarian, we're not allowed to have dreams.

But I am allowed to respect France, and laugh at Haiti for fucking itself and proving that scum can't rule themselves. France got a good deal, it still has the right to meddle in the affairs of its ex colonies, and its territorial integrity in Europe is maintained. If any European nations are winners, they're one of them.

>>298044
The Haitian revolution was a resounding success no matter how you slice it.

>>298044
> Haiti for fucking itself and proving that scum can't rule themselves.

Yeah they shouldn't have paid debts forced on them at gunpoint

>>298057
They had to literally buy their independence. And today they're by far the worst country in the Western hemisphere, while the Caribbean islands that stayed French are enjoying first world life.

>>298101
I feel like this was meant to argue that the Haitian revolution wasn't successful but I'm not seeing any arguments for it not being successful.

File: 1448128162168.gif (1018KB, 499x374px) Image search: [Google]

1018KB, 499x374px

>>290771

1790-1791
They went for Mirabeau instead of listen Necker.
A system of government between the british and the american was the way, but people were too "enlightened" to see it.

>>298002
>implying Britian and all other European nations achieved such unprecendeted levels of wealth, health, and civality by slavery
You might want to look at the last slide again.

>>298124
Are you fucking kidding me? Have you ever heard of colonialism? The entire world was working nonstop to make Europe richer for more than a solid century.

>>298142
>other people are more succesful, so successful in fact that they can go around the world and collect more resources for themselves
>only western civilization did these things
You might want to read that last slide again.

>>298142
Oh also
>implying it was the entire warld enslaved jus to serve da whyte mang.
We also brought civilziation and effective culture to lands around the world. The culture and infrastructure would have worked if egalitarianism is true.

>>298149
Can you stop with this bootstraps bullshit? Europeans were so successful because it had the biggest canons and coerced the rest of the world into serving Europeans.

>>298165
>ability to project force globally and build "the biggest cannons" isn't a show of success
>da whole wide world was serving Europeans!
>and befor dat we all lived in peace in harmony before dem raycis white crackas came and enslaved da whole world
Last slide, please.
What, did Europeans come succesful by not "pulling on their own bootstraps"?

>>298183
>strawman
Listen, dude. Just stop with the boostraps bullshit. You can't be all like "Europeans picked themselves up by their bootstraps! That's why they are successful!" while simultaneously arguing that it's a dog eat dog world and there is nothing wrong with Europe getting ahead by via colonialism.

>>298193
How did Europeans become so succesful that they can build the "biggest canons" and be so profoundly succesful, after a series of successive wars, famines, and eradicating diseases go on to travel quite literally around the entire world and build the biggest empires.
Magic?
"Pulling up by your own boot straps" is another term for "hard work".

>>290771
what do you mean by "french revolution"?
from the initial uprise to napoleon's reign or did the revolution end/started after the reign of terror?

>>298203
>eradicating disease
LOL, wut? Europe has long been a fucking cesspool.

Anyway, they got that way because they were a bunch of the nearly constant state of war in Europe motivating Europeans to progress the acquired Chinese gunpowder technology. They ended up exploring the world to bypass Ottoman domination of Indian spice trade. Nation states remained relatively independent and competing with one another because of Christianity, the papacy, and some shared royal heritage from absorbing one another.

Regardless, I'm just arguing that you stop with the boostraps shit. Europeans accomplished a lot of awesome shit but don't pretend they didn't benefit a fucktonne from the exploitation of the world. I mean, a lot of the money funding bigger and better Spanish canons on bigger and better Spanish ships was due to them working natives to death mining a mountain of Silver in South America. Natives got jack shit from that deal.

>>290771
>monarchy and Ancien Regime abolished

>failed

???

>>298265
They did benifit, and by eradicating disease I mean diseases that eradicate populations.
Sure they acquired other technologies through trade, but made vast technological advancements on their own.
Then becoming so succesful they went around the world and colonized it, bringing European technologies and way of life to the world.
Sure the profited, but it wasn't
>OH LAWDY THE WHITE MAN AND ALL HIS EVILNESS ENSLAVED DA WHOLE WORLD AND DAS WHY WE POOR
Essentially you devolved into shouting
>CRACKER
for me not saying
>white people enslaved people and Das why they succesful
When there were only around 800,000 slaves in the US verses millions of whites.

>>298287
Europe wasn't that far ahead of the rest of the world when they colonized the Americas. They just had slightly better canons and small arms than the rest of the world. They only started to rocket ahead of the rest of the world due to the riches of the Americas and acquire further innovations from other civilizations by the global trade network afforded to Europe by those American riches. Innovations like the Chinese iron plow for one that aided in a European agricultural revolution that would partly lead to the industrial revolution.

Europeans did a lot of awesome shit, but don't try to hold those accomplishments over the rest of the world as if they didn't play a large part in allowing Europe to accomplish all that shit.

Because it became a zealous quasi-religious revolution who wanted to try and decentralise knowledge but ended up becoming very similar to the regime before it.

>>298353
Baby steps, man. Baby steps. At least they were trying to get rid of the blood sucking royalty of Europe.

>>298306
>Africa
>Australia
>America's
>advanced as the rest of the world
Do you know of the rest of the world's history of colonization?
And
>slightly better guns
Yes yes that's it. /slightly/ better things make you dominate the entire world for 200 years.
Jared Diamond please go.

>>298360
>House of Bourbon

>blood sucking

okay m8

>>298361
You know I didn't mean that. I was grouping all of non-Europe together. In that context my statement makes sense.

>implying Europe was leagues above the Ottomans, India, and China around 1500
Are you joking? There is a reason Europe could only conquer Americans in the first wave of colonization. It was that first wave that allowed Europe to later dominate Africa, India, and China.

>>298369
You heard me! All the royalty was exploiting the working European citizenry! Violent revolution was the only way to overcome their tyranny for good!

>>298380
And similarly if Asians were to reach the Americas or other lands first they would be global powers and we would "blame" them.
Also it us very arguable they were on a different "level" per say.
As the bottle necked population of Europe resulted in something a little more advanced for the earlier world and once out of the ice age and the introduction of agriculture it unleashed their full developed potential

>>298435
>And similarly if Asians were to reach the Americas or other lands first they would be global powers and we would "blame" them.

Ottomans would just try to convert the natives to Islam.

China would just make them a tributary and leave them alone as long as they respected the order.

Only Anglos would try to scam them into selling their land for worthless beads and intentionally give them disease infected blankets.

>>298435
I'm not "blaming" anyone. I'm not the incarnation of everyone you disagree with. I'm just arguing that about the bootstraps bullshit being held over the rest of the non-European world.

>As the bottle necked population of Europe resulted in something a little more advanced for the earlier world and once out of the ice age and the introduction of agriculture it unleashed their full developed potential.
Wow, that's the biggest bullshit I've read on /his/ all day. Congratulations.

>>298444
Go away Germanfag.
Belgians cut off their hands and ate them. (^:
>>298457
It's not actual bullshit, but it's rejected because it doesn't fit mainstream narratives

>>298444
Pretty much. But I think the Ottomans would have tried to colonize a little too.

No proper ideology any more than edgyness
The left before Marx was a disgrace

>>298464
>talking about being redpilled unironically
Race is the goddidit of socioeconomics and most of the proponents of the race explanation for the current state of the world irrationally reject all other possible factors because those other factors don't serve their own seflish interests.

If the French Revolution had succeeded then Marxism would have never existed.

>>298486
I have no inkling of your accusations, as I can easily flip the statement you just made to reflect what mainstream sociology and anthropology says and it would stay true.
>le Redpilled
Where did I state this?

>>298543
Your position isn't accepted by anyone beyond some fringe racist cooks because it's an irrational rejection of all alternative explenations and just a means for such cooks to feel important by taking the accomplishments of people who died long ago as their own.

>>298758
Kek.
Of course they are.
And you call me self interested when you can spew nothing but personal attacks about how "disgusted" you are.
Your position is nothing but to falsify that man can be apart of a greater organism, and in its continuous time frame be apart of its former self.

>>298775
Did you link to the right post? Because I'm finding it hard connecting what you are saying to what I was saying.

>kill king
>kill aristocrat scum
>radical meritocracy in the military lets the BTFO the rest of europe for 20 years

pretty pretty pretty good

>>298814
Basically you're spewing typical non-responses of "ABLOO ABLOO ABLOO RAYCISM ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN RACIAL EVOLUTION HAS A SIGNIFICANT PART, MUCH LESS ANY PART IS RETARDED AND A FAILURE AT LIFE".

>>298840
Evolution?

>>298829
>radical meritocracy in the military
i'd put it down to conscription and the fact the French could lose more men than anyone else could and still fight.

>>299727
I'd say maybe outside of Wellington, non-French Napoleonic leaders wouldn't even make it in the top ten

>>298287
Europa didn't get ahead until they industrialized.
Then the shithole of Europa got ahead by 50 years of technology.

>>299867
Europe had the best canons and muskets before industrializing thanks to all their warring and the money flowing in from the Americas.

File: Riis_5_cent_lodging_bayard_st_1889_small.jpg (68KB, 500x404px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x404px

>>298124
>implying Britian and all other European nations achieved such unprecendeted levels of wealth, health, and civality by slavery
You might want to look at the last slide again.
T o p k e k
>mommy, why isn't daddy coming home?
>he got fired and is out drinking himself to death by selling your clothes, dear
>b-but w-won't we die?
>maybe, but try not to before work tomorrow morning, you're 5 now, it's time you start acting like a man
>try not to get crushed by mine carts
>b-but s-surely if I g-go talk to mr factory man he'll u-understand? w-what with d-d-daddy and all?
>HAHAHAHAHA TOP FUCKING KEK CUNT now stfu and go to work before I beat yo ass

>>298361
>. /slightly/ better things make you dominate the entire world for 200 years
No it doesn't. Industrializing is what makes you go ahead.

The extra economic power speeds up research vastly.
The extra manpower gives a 10-20x production increase.
The industrial methods gives even larger boosts.

So you go from having slightly better guns, to fixing fundamental flaws on the gun, and then mass producing higher quality versions of the guns.And having a 30-40x larger conscript base, a method for training them, on the top of canned supplies in case of campaign supply lines gets broken.

>>299905
This was a good one. I will give you that

it didn't, OP

>>299913
Germans breeding like rabbits back then. What happened?

>>300044
GGG is nothing new to them

>>299913
Holy fuck a lot of people died in the potato famine.
What. The. Fuck.
I never even realized.