What revolution was more important, the french or the american

>>36470
Important for what end?

>merchants overwhelm the aristocratic class
>call it a revolution

>>36488
This, you can't just say what one is more "important" without stating what it's specifically more important to.

File: RevolutionaryWarsd.png (643KB, 1809x2152px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1809x2152px

It's pretty easy to determine which one caused the most buttpain around the planet

Kings and emperors didn't give two shit about some far away colony being ruled democratically, but one of the most ancient and powerful country in Europe? They just couldn't tolerate it, which lead to 20 years of constant warfare

>>36470

French. Even though it was a complete failure, it introduced the concepts of nationalism, freedom, unity and socialism to the public class, and promised a future free of nobility. Western aristocracy has simply never recovered from this.

You could argue that the Civil War in the US was an attempt to reassert aristocratic control in the United States, while the North fought for the French ideals of freedom and liberty for all.

>>36470
This. But also the French started the decolonization period for Spain and Portugal, so I'd go for the French.

But also I'd prefered that the French Revolution were more like the American one. The French one have never really ended.

>>36470
both of them were terrible and ruined the future for everyone, but at least the french revolution serves as a good reminder to rich people to not be complete assholes, the american revolution was just greed plain and simple

American "revolution" can't be considered revolution at all since it didn't provoque any social change, the dominating class was the same.
on the other hand, the french revolution not only meant the substitution of a class for another but intoducend new concepts as >>36594 said and opened the door to Liberalism in Europe and other revolutions like the Haitian (Which was imo much more important and usually is forgotten; Haiti still paying the consequences of those days)

France revolution. Even if it didn't fully achieve its goals it generally made sure every other ruler in Europe had to take few steps down the power ladder and give it to the masses. Also America was a young nation and not wholly interesting to Europe, but France, which had been standing there for 1000 years, breaking apart all of sudden was a sign of times changing.
However, neither revolution invented liberalism, which was more or less product of the era, but both of them surely propagated its message. So from our modern point of view, French revolution affects us more than American revolution (USA would have gained independence sooner or later, just like how other colonies did)

The French Revolution failed because it was based upon a false notion of human nature.

>>36928
>class was the same
You need to read Thompson's Whigs and Hunters

There would be no french revolution without the american one

>>36470
>more important
As in influence on world history? French.
Without it the American would likely have not been as effective. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams all went to France after their revolution to learn from them.

The French Revolutionary wars allowed Napoleon to rise, whose importance is pretty self evident.

>>37029
>human nature.
Fuck off forever.

Aren't French and American revolution two parts of the same thing?

>>37212

I can't see why. Elaborate ?

>>37202
Leftist detected.

>>36470
American here

The French revolution by far. It's easily one of the most pivotal moments in history.

File: 666.png (141KB, 1690x599px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1690x599px

>>37222
American revolution used the idea of lumières which originated from French. And French copy American revolution. There were two part of the same process: the apparition of capitalism.

American

It helped cause and then inspired the French one.

>>37222

He's just making the argument that the American Revolution borrowed a lot of the ideological causes from the French one. American colonists were pretty familiar with the Revolution in Paris at the time and basically promised social programs for Americans.

>>37056
>>37288

You're going to have to try harder than this senpai

>>37288
Other way around, it was French writers who set the ideological foundation for the American revolution

The French Revolution definitely had a bigger impact on history, but the influence of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers in France is undeniable.

No onen coaleced against the Patriots because the people in Europe didn't care about some backwoods British colony, but every European monarch was threatened by the happenings in France.

>>37163
>Jefferson, Franklin, Adams all went to France after their revolution to learn from them.

What? The Founding Fathers went to France well before the Revolution to lobby for help in America. They didn't go during or after the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars.

Up until Napoleon got his shit together, the French Revolution was representing everything that could go wrong when creating a "progressive" society, in terms of the atrocities being committed.

>>37339
>atrocities
What are you talking?

>>37222
Wouldn't say it was a continuation of the American revolution, but the two events are tied together somewhat closely, ESPECIALLY some of the leaders of the early republican period of the revolution, before it turned more and more dictatorial and radical.
Mike Duncan has a great podcast called revolutions that covers the entire French revolution in depth. Also covers the American revolutions and English Civil war. Check it out.

>>36505
That's like the definition of a revolution.

Zhou Enlai said that it was too early to tell the effects of the French Revolution in 1976.

>>36505
That is a revolution my communist friend.

>>37046
could you summarize Thompson's point? I'm legit interested since I'm not actually familiarized with anglo historiography

>>37405
Misquoted, he was talking about 1968.

File: 1.jpg (37KB, 372x400px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 372x400px

If you haven't read Robespierre your opinion on the French Revolution is irrelevant

>>37434
The general point is that the American bourgeoisie was the more whiggish of the elite. The British / Tory elite were the "Hunters," the anti-liberal land elite who failed to adequately circulate the value form. In contrast the whigs were trade, state and production oriented proto-bourgeois.

The whig - tory dichotomy existed within the colonies, and was decisively terminated by the revolution, where the whigs won (and then split into federalist and anti-federalists).

People often forget that thousands of Colonial tories died in the revolution.

File: 2633335.jpg (639KB, 3000x2149px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 3000x2149px

>>36470
>What revolution was more important
Russian

>>37298
Got it.
Still, aside from the common ideological background that may have inspired the revolutionnary ideas and that were theorised in France, the two revolutions are hardly the same.
The American one was a war of independance which got backed up with ideas from the Lumières and had one of the first "anti colonialist" ring to it, sure.
The French one was not at all a war for any independance whatsoever, its very reason to be was both an unlikely conjonction of unprecedented popular dissatisfaction and an rising awareness of the ideas of the Lumières to back it up all. What should the Revolution be and should it be spread over the world were two crucial questions until the end of the Terror, as far as I know (therefore I could be wrong), the American one didn't raise as many questions as the French one. The newly found U.S. were more focused on building a new political systems.
It could've been otherwise, had Americans taken part with the French at their Revolution, the exchanges and the alliance between the two nations would've been greater and the bilateral influence could have created something new entirely.

>>36470
The American because without the American one the French one wouldn't have been the same

The French one was largely influenced by the American one

>>37363
I assume he's talking about The Terror.

File: 1446140269418.jpg (30KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x800px

>>37518
>Zizek

While the American Revolution carries considerable historic weight due to, obviously, being the reason for the United States to exist in the first place; the French Revolution had both more immediate and long-term impact.
Contrary to American romanticized ideas about themselves, they were still just a set of not-so important colonies on the outskirts of civilization. The French Revolution on the other hand took place in the most powerful country in the (cultural and economic) heart of civilization, Europe, and meant the destruction of the Ancien Régime, the end of multiple monarchies, the institution of the Code Napoléon and general standardization, the creation and destruction of numerous nations (most importantly the Holy Roman Empire) and the overture to a small century of rising nationalistic sentiment and revolutions, culminating in the gunshots of Gavrilo Princip.

In short, the American Revolution's impact only became meaningful (roughly said) from 1941 onward, whereas the French Revolution's impact was immediate.

File: robespierre-terror.png (473KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 800x600px

>>37608
I assume too. But terror is one of the greatest moment of humanity.

File: board.png (221KB, 557x378px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 557x378px

>people actually think the american revolution was more important than the french revolution

>>37574
Causation =/= relevance

If it wasn't for Britain and France, the USA wouldn't exist
Do you think that means UK and France are more relevant than the US to the current world?

>>37727
The Terror was no better than Stalin's purges.

>>37727
That quote doesnt make sense, the occult Jewish elite were behind The Terror, though to be fair Robey probably didn't figure that out until his head was in a bucket

>>36470
The French Revolution was the beginning of the end for European monarchies, America was just a rogue colony state that got really lucky, and their influence wasn't really felt globally until the 1900's.

>>37245
/pol/lack detected. Didn't you read the sticky post? Keep your garbage out of the discussion

>>36594
>and promised a future free of nobility. Western aristocracy has simply never recovered from this

They just changed one aristocracy for the other. Modern France is a caste-based society still, with Freemasons and Enarques at the top.

>Merovingian plot to switch monarchies
>important

The AR echoed through history. Third and Fourth Republics of France owe more to it than their own faux revolution

>>37562
>let's start a Marxist revolution
>in a largely un-industrialized nation that's too big and not advanced enough to actually work
>slander the name of socialism for literally everyone else because psychopaths have an easy time becoming head of state

Rookie mistake comrade

File: cambodia.jpg (117KB, 553x369px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 553x369px

>>37727
Yeah man, I'm sure all those peasants in the Vendeé were terrible oppressors.

I do agree that the French Revolution was the most influential, though, since it basically invented totalitarianism, based on the desire of intellectuals to remodel society according to their schemes, with millions of people dying at the wake of their desires.

And then there are people who think that this is good and the legacy of the French Revolution is positive.

I would say the French Rev, has a longer lasting effect and pushed some nations into forming ground breaking policies. Hell they had to unite most of the western world just to fight revolutionary france

>>37916
He actually brought some sort of discussion, while you just resorted to name calling. Leave or actually discuss the topic shitbag.

>captcha: Paris
Ayy lmao

The American Revolution was not successful at all, in fact it never even happened. The American War of Independence was, and that's an entirely different thing. But there was no revolution. Only the wealth landowners who already dominated the 13 colonies before like a kind of aristocracy were even allowed to vote. The president wasn't even elected by the people. Much of the country still practiced slavery. In effect, for the average American absolutely nothing had changed. Changes came much more progressively during the 19th century.

By contrast, the French Revolution changed everything. It immediately instituted absolute equality of all men, all elections were by universal suffrage, and it abolished slavery and all aristocratic privilege. It applied the principles of liberty and equality, real democracy, the modern concept of the nation-state, and civil law, and then spread all those principles across Europe and indirectly the entire world.

You should also not be confused by the fact it led to the Empire. The French Revolution was not directed against the king at all, but against the aristocracy. The French people remained monarchists, and Napoleon was the first man ever elected to power by universal suffrage (first as first consul, then as first consul for life, then as Emperor). Democracy is not incompatible with monarchy, it's only incompatible with aristocracy.

File: 11849332_857921064299666_1383591803_n.jpg (24KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 320x320px

>>38064

Ever read plato's republic; Utopianism didn't come into existence with the French revolution

The French revolution, easily.

>>37764
Well, if you argue that it helped start the French Revolution, then isn't it by definition?

>>38131
So did many other philosophers, but intellectuals as a caste taking enough power to put their schemes into practice is something that at least in the modern world can be said to have begun in France.

>>36470
French revolution probably played a huge part in the american one even happening.

I'd probably say the french revolution as it signalled the end of all monarchies across the globe.

>>37833
Stalin's purges were not perfect but they were there to remove capitalist agent who tried to restore capitalism. But they failed because capitalism was restored in 1956.

>>38015
One of the Cliffites has a good book on the failed European revolutions of 1916-1922. The aim was never russia but world wide revolution and things being different in Germany it would have been, and the vanguardist shit of the post 1917 Bolsheviks would have been subsumed beneath the general class movement.

>>38280
Basically a book of wishful thinking.

>>38235
But that's wrong.

While French thinkers did influence the Founding Fathers, the American Revolution took place before the French one did.

As for signaling the end of monarchies...again, not really. The three ohases the " Republic " went through before Napoleon were as inept as they were corrupt, and when he was crowned, he was more or less an enlightened, capable monarch. What cane after him was a return to the Ancien Regime, and no other European country actually lost its monarchy.

>>38089
>Captcha: French fries

It's a conspiracy.

>>38371
>>Captcha: French fries
>It's a conspiracy.
No it's just freedom.

>>38235
The irony is that the actual accomplishment of the Revolution was to consolidate and finish the work that the absolute monarchy in France began in the XVIIth century.

>>38279
Racism is not allowed, because reasons, but justifying the murder of millions is ok.

>>36470
The French revolution. The Americans did not have a revolution, they had a war of independence.

>>38450
>but justifying the murder of millions is ok.
unsourced facts

File: 1444616590687.jpg (48KB, 429x409px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 429x409px

>>38279
>But they failed because capitalism was restored in 1956.
Anon please.

>>38235
>French revolution probably played a huge part in the american one even happening.

Yeah
Fucking American time travelers copying the French!!

>>38513
What?

>>38563
Capitalism did not come to Russia until 1992 when Yeltsin implemented his "shock program".

>>38513
Capitalism was restored in 1919. (Pirani, Simon)

>>36470
The french revolution, of course, because it gave rise to the near-total conquest of the then and now most powerful continent in the world.

America was a backwater at this time. I mean, sure it was at the very least the most significant piece of developed territory for the British, but it doesn't come close to the importance that the French revolutionary wars did. (I'm American btw)

>>38524
>implying Weishaupt wasn't behind both

>>38618
Capitalism was destroyed in the 1920s when Stalin turned against the NEP.

>>38089
>he was discussing the topic you were callin names
>>37245
>leftist detected

1. I see your problem, you can't read.
2. He wasn't contributing anything, he said a vague generalization about human nature and the French Revolution being a bad assumption. Clearly political, then when he was called out he called somebody a leftist.

>>38610
So from 1956 to 1992 there was no capitalism in USSR. Despite the fact that a ruling class was appropriating means of production? The proletariat was not ruling since 1953/56 (the transition took 3 years).

>>38015
True, but it's not like the bourgoisie wouldn't have found a way to slander communism anyway, they're always going to be fighting for capitalism.

>>38618
Capitalism doesn't exist. It's a buzzword invented by revolutionaries to slander the existing economic system, like conservatives invented "Cultural Marxism" to attack the modern world cultural climate.

>>38693
>So from 1956 to 1992 there was no capitalism in USSR
From the 1920s until 1992 there was no capitalism in the USSR.

>Despite the fact that a ruling class was appropriating means of production?
Call it a deformed worker's state then like Trotsky did. The fact is that it was not capitalism as it did not function with things such as markets, it was something else.

>Despite the fact that a ruling class was appropriating means of production?
The proletariat never ruled the USSR. It was always the Vanguard Party which ruled it and formed its own class.

>>38658
Except it wasn't. (Andrle; Fitzpatrick)

>>37410
Communists do consider it a revolution.

>>36470
The French Revolution did a great job of destroying Catholicism and paving the way for atheism/socialism

>>38746
Great argument. Stop name dropping and post an argument or you can go into the filter you stupid namefag.

>>38015
Go read Red Plenty.

>>38736
>the existing economic system
Capitalism?
The entire notion of an "economic system" is deeply Marxist.

>>38745
Ho a Trotskist. Everything is explained. You're incorrigible like Mao said. It's not surprising that Trotskists were opposing the american intervention in France at the end of war. There is no such thing as a deformed worker's state.
There is only two possibilities : the bourgeoisie rules or the proletariat rules. If you oppose a "deformed worker's state" it just means that you're opposing proletariat state. So bourgeoisie behavior. Filthy trotskist.

>>37202
>there is no such thing as human nature
How retarded could you be?

>>38789
If you want to have a serious opinion on class forces in the Soviet Union you need to read Sheila Fitzpatrick on the actual structure of nomenklatura life in the 1930s, where she very clearly points out that the race to appropriate surplus value from the working class was the central aspect of the Ural-Siberian method and the purges.

Similarly, if you haven't read Andrle on how soviet factories and the soviet working class actually lived, your opinion on the matter is useless.

You can also try "Worker in a workers' state" on how the norm was used to increase the speed of production, and the circuit of production, in the fraternal countries, clear examples of the extraction of surplus value from a working class by the nomenklatura.

File: 1436396315500.jpg (178KB, 491x713px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 491x713px

>>36594
>You could argue that the Civil War in the US was an attempt to reassert aristocratic control in the United States, while the North fought for the French ideals of freedom and liberty for all.

>freemen wanting to govern themselves is somehow imposing an aristocracy?
Funny how the North had industrial aristocracies while the south had few and far between plantation natural aristocracies if you can even call them that.

>>37764
>French Revolution created Napoleon
>American Revolution created America
Gee I don't know

>>38898
You have to understand him, the entire ideological structure he spent his entire life building collapses with the acceptance of the concept of huma nature, so it's easier to deny it.

>>38855
I'm not a Trotskyist, I am not even a Marxist. I do however think that Trotsky's assesment of who ruled in the USSR was correct. It was the Vanguard Party/Bureaucracy which formed the ruling class.

>There is only two possibilities : the bourgeoisie rules or the proletariat rules
You are retarded. Have you even read Marx's works? There are far more than two classes in society which marx identifies. A class is defined in Marxist terms by its relations to the means of production, a bureaucratic class like in the USSR had a unique relations to the means of productions which is not comparable to that which Marx identified as the Bourgeois or the Proletariat.

>>38911
>where she very clearly points out that the race to appropriate surplus value from the working class was the central aspect of the Ural-Siberian method and the purges.
This does not make it capitalism. It sounds to me like both you and the writers you reference have not even read Marx.

>>38911
>reading some Stalin apologist who got embarassed once a few archives were opened and showed that Stalin was truly killing people

>>38015
Kill yourself

>>38951
The French Revolution created the modern world. The American Revolution created nothing at all.

The American War of Independence created America (well, mostly the French intervention lel).

>>36470
The french revolution was pretty much the basis for the spring of nations, the american revolution was pretty much just a rebellion. It's not really comparable, American is the american dream country, not the american revolution country, no matter how much internal propaganda the US focus on that war.

File: freud.jpg (59KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 850x400px

>>38898
Freud ruined human nature forever

>>38371
>after him was a return to the Ancien Regime
Return of the monarchy is not the same as the return of the Ancien Régime. Louis XVIII had no choice but to allow a "constitution", the Charter of 1814, because absolute monarchy was no longer possible in France. Proof is, when Charles X tried to use a loophole to suspend the Charter he was ousted by another revolution in 1830 (the more liberal July Monarchy who followed would also be overthrown by yet another revolution in 1848).

The Ancien Régime was killed by the Revolution of 1789.

>>38974
Pirani, Andrle and Fitzpatrick are all post-archival historians.

>>39258
So fucking what? Bongs neutered their own monarchy well before. And the American Revolution got rid of all monarchy for the colonies, not sure how its different. Constitutional Monarchy was the system that reverberated BC in Eurrope not the Mithraic fantasy of the French

>>39422
BC is a typo, ignore it

>>39422
The point is that the absolutist Ancien Regime didn't return after Napoleon, unlike what was claimed. Do you have difficulties reading?

>>39422
Should add it was a plot by Frederick the Great to eliminate a rival monarchy, stupid frogs

File: 1445108765094.jpg (40KB, 640x370px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x370px

>>37518
>zizek

>>39490
OK and how is that important to anyone but France?

>>36470
French revolution.

>>39597
Christ I was correcting him on one of his point, why are you getting all butthurt over it? Where did I claim that it impacted Europe or the world?

>>37777
To the current world, no
But historically speaking, yes
This is /his/ not /int/

>>38969
>It was the Vanguard Party/Bureaucracy which formed the ruling class.
Was it proletariat or bourgeoisie?
>Have you even read Marx's works?
Ho yes,.
>There are far more than two classes in society which marx identifies.
Yes, but if we're not under an older system (old communism, slavery, feudalism) it could only be two ruling classes. Don't even argue on that it will be the proof that you does not understand Marxism, and I would say that it's normal for someone who agree with Trotsky.
>a bureaucratic class like in the USSR had a unique relations to the means of productions which is not comparable to that which Marx identified as the Bourgeois or the Proletariat.
Was it bourgeoisie or proletariat? Chose your side. Or maybe it's a older class, a class of feudalism. That's what you mean? The party under Stalin was a feudalistic class?

>>41069
Tankie fuck off

>>38969
>This does not make it capitalism.

Reread the first three chapters on the value form.

>>37163
Please tell me your not American.
Please, I can't deal with another one of my countrymen being this retarded about our history.
The American Revolution influenced the French Revolution, not the other way around.

>>41911
First he's a Trot, now he's a Tankie… jesus christ.

>>36544
>Mysore
??????

I would say American. America successfully rebelled against the most powerful empire at the time. It showed that if people could stand up against the most powerful empire, than surely they could do the same for the second.

>>36470
French

Rebelling Colonies aren't new.

File: Tipu_Sultan_warrior_king.gif (495KB, 648x912px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 648x912px

>>42005
Muslim Indian State that didn't like the British and the Maratha Hindus so much.

Led by based Tipu Sahib. Tiger of Mysore.

>>36544
>>42005
Mysore is the true friend of revolutiinaries

File: 5d08832e8bedf0e9cf28cc9a35ecb2e019edefe5.gif (60KB, 350x269px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 350x269px

>>42444
>America successfully rebelled against the most powerful empire at the time

That's some impressive uneducation right here
The British Empire of 1776 wasn't the British Empire of the early 20th century
It wasn't that big and was notably less powerful that many european powers (France, Spain, Austria, Russia).

Pic related, in orange is what the British Empire consisted of at the time of the US Revolution
I've noticed that this anachronism was very popular among Americans, mixing up the 18th British "empire" with the late 19th century one that was a superpower spawing 1/3 of the world, in order to make the revolution look more impressive

Anyway, from a military point of view, the American Revolutionary War was wayyyyyyy less impressive than the French one
See comparison >>36544

The industrial revolution was the most important revolution of them all.

>>44678

Britain's empire in North America was pretty big - but it was also in rebellion! Although they did manage to hold on to the northern and Caribbean parts.

Had a decent chunk of territory in India already too, though.

>>42005

British empire was busy elsewhere, fighting France, Spain, and Murica at once. They wanted to take advantage.

You've never pulled that shit in EU3/4?

ITT: Overly proud frogs and booty blasted Bongs who literally think the FR happened first

>>46559
Hello my booty-blasted american friend :-)

Can the American's stop trying to picture it as a revolution. It wasn't.
>but muh republic
Dutch were earlier

>>46727
>boston massacre
5 people died

More burgers die on a random day from schoolshootings

>>42540
One of the Sharpe's books is about this guy.

File: pinochet.png (138KB, 375x206px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 375x206px

>>38969
>Trotskyist
Opinion discarded.

>>36544
>Britain owning Florida
I don't understand

>>42540
>literally had his army drowned
>based

>>38976
He's right

>>47069
We were owned by 4 counties before becoming a state.

>>47069
I think they got it from Spain in a war and lost it in that one.

>>36470
The french one, you just have to look at the countries that use the metric system or napoleonic inspired law for some simplistic examples.

Though the french revolution cannot be explained without the american one. On the other hand, the american revolution cannot be explained without the philosophy and ideology developed mostly on the francophone world.

>>36470
The french revolution pretty much inspired the independization of all colonies in The Americas (except for the U.S.).