Sorry, I clicked reply too soon in my rage. She also, marvelously manages to get Robespierre's age at death wrong. Way to go girl! Don't let those pesky facts get in the way!
Simple answer: they don't. More complicated but more accurate answer: some don't, most probably just haven't thought through the implications of their positions.
Yes, although I do think this is a rather lazy position on behalf of people who are essentially paid to think. I'm quite understanding of the fact that most people do not have the time or the spare brain cells to think through the realities of revolutionary politics, but if you are a historian or an established novelist, you are bloody well paid to think through the consequences. If you don't, you fail.
I think self-interest may also play a part here. I do remember maelicia saying in her essay on the Robespierre!Terror thing that age and acceptance in the establishment does flabby up one's political instincts and I think that point may well be pertinent here. Most people are scared of questioning a system they have done well out of.
There's also the warm fuzzy idealist stance - I think put best by Danton's apotheosis in La Revolution Francaise, the idea that 'we love the Revolution but we deplore the violence' which, well, yes indeed apart from a few reactionary loons, yep, that's about everyone agreeing. I'm fairly sure even Robespierre would get out of the hot tub of blood of innocents he was rolling around in with Saint-Just to agree. The major problem being what the heck do you do if you love the Revolution but other people don't? Do you defend it, or do you let it slip away? I admit, how far you go to defend the Revolution is a very fraught issue, but it is one that most people don't seem to want to engage with. They are just "Oh, the revolution was wonderful and we like Mirabeau/Danton/Desmoulins because they loved it but didn't want to have the terror." Which is a fine point, but a bit like saying, I'd really love sweets if they didn't rot my teeth.
there was a lot of Freudian nonsense and the seemingly requisite Robespierre belittling
Robespierre spends more time than is seemly on the psychoanalyst's couch, no? I'm not a historian, but I have read a fair amount of books on history and Freud seems to be called in far more frequently in Robespierre's case than almost anyone else.
With Robespierre, surveillance comes from the people and is directed, quite openly, at the government; with Fouché surveillance comes from the government, or more specifically from the police, and is directed at the people (secretly, of course)
Can I have a moment for the coolness of Robespierre. I have nothing more coherent to say.
Now, this may seem like a pretty obvious point, but how many people leave it at "Robespierre and Fouché were both Revolutionaries who thought surveillance was important, clearly we can safely group them together"
Rather like those people who confuse freedom to consume with freedom to be, no? All surveillance must be bad - and therefore we let the government right off the hook.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: Saturday, 29 May 2010 01:38 (UTC)Simple answer: they don't. More complicated but more accurate answer: some don't, most probably just haven't thought through the implications of their positions.
Yes, although I do think this is a rather lazy position on behalf of people who are essentially paid to think. I'm quite understanding of the fact that most people do not have the time or the spare brain cells to think through the realities of revolutionary politics, but if you are a historian or an established novelist, you are bloody well paid to think through the consequences. If you don't, you fail.
I think self-interest may also play a part here. I do remember
There's also the warm fuzzy idealist stance - I think put best by Danton's apotheosis in La Revolution Francaise, the idea that 'we love the Revolution but we deplore the violence' which, well, yes indeed apart from a few reactionary loons, yep, that's about everyone agreeing. I'm fairly sure even Robespierre would get out of the hot tub of blood of innocents he was rolling around in with Saint-Just to agree. The major problem being what the heck do you do if you love the Revolution but other people don't? Do you defend it, or do you let it slip away? I admit, how far you go to defend the Revolution is a very fraught issue, but it is one that most people don't seem to want to engage with. They are just "Oh, the revolution was wonderful and we like Mirabeau/Danton/Desmoulins because they loved it but didn't want to have the terror." Which is a fine point, but a bit like saying, I'd really love sweets if they didn't rot my teeth.
there was a lot of Freudian nonsense and the seemingly requisite Robespierre belittling
Robespierre spends more time than is seemly on the psychoanalyst's couch, no? I'm not a historian, but I have read a fair amount of books on history and Freud seems to be called in far more frequently in Robespierre's case than almost anyone else.
With Robespierre, surveillance comes from the people and is directed, quite openly, at the government; with Fouché surveillance comes from the government, or more specifically from the police, and is directed at the people (secretly, of course)
Can I have a moment for the coolness of Robespierre. I have nothing more coherent to say.
Now, this may seem like a pretty obvious point, but how many people leave it at "Robespierre and Fouché were both Revolutionaries who thought surveillance was important, clearly we can safely group them together"
Rather like those people who confuse freedom to consume with freedom to be, no? All surveillance must be bad - and therefore we let the government right off the hook.