![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In defense of Robespierre
Thursday, 29 December 2005 12:39I feel this is something, however briefly, I have to do. I am sick of the argument that Robespierre was the predecessor of various 20th century dictators. I believe this charge to be not only unfounded, but unreasonable to any thinking person.
One support of this argument I find to be the most distasteful is that he and and the leaders of 20th century revolutions were both idealistic. I beg to differ! Robespierre may have had something of the idealist in him, but the leaders, at least, of 20th century revolutions were opportunistic and had a goal of dictatorship from the beginning, committing atrocities in the name of ideals they had duped the populace into believing in but clearly did not believe in themselves. Robespierre had no intention of ever being a dictator (and never became one, either!), and indeed when acting on 9 Thermidor would have usurped the power of the Convention, he could not do it.
Robespierre did not anticipate the necessity of the Terror, and did not, as it is often proposed wish to promote it indefinitely. It was not an issue involving a grab for power, but a measure taken to prevent others from abusing it. The Girondins were the cause of the war, exacerbated the civil war, and gave the first blow of the Terror. Are they therefore blameless? Is it therefore Robespierre's fault that the Montagne had to win the war the Girondins had no idea how to fight and prevent internal enemies from murdering the nascent Republic?
And how do these circumstances have anything in common with those of later 20th century revolutions? Do these revolutions even have a figure comparable to Robespierre? Not at all. But they had a precedent in the French Revolution--and the opportunity to learn from its mistakes. They chose not to take these lessons, and that makes their actions reprehensible. Who could claim similarly that Robespierre and his fellow-revolutionaries could have anticipated the 20th century? That they even shared common principles with these later revolutionaries? It is ludicrous to place the blame for actions taking place in the 20th century on the people of the 18th. These 20th century revolutionaries may have adopted Robespierre as their emblem, but is that proof that he would have liked them? From what I can tell his principles were vastly different from theirs. When are those who accuse Robespierre going to realize that so-called "Jacobinism" does not equal Bolshevism?
Oh, and one more thing:
Do those who accuse him of paranoia about plots realize that it was a plot which felled him?
--S
One support of this argument I find to be the most distasteful is that he and and the leaders of 20th century revolutions were both idealistic. I beg to differ! Robespierre may have had something of the idealist in him, but the leaders, at least, of 20th century revolutions were opportunistic and had a goal of dictatorship from the beginning, committing atrocities in the name of ideals they had duped the populace into believing in but clearly did not believe in themselves. Robespierre had no intention of ever being a dictator (and never became one, either!), and indeed when acting on 9 Thermidor would have usurped the power of the Convention, he could not do it.
Robespierre did not anticipate the necessity of the Terror, and did not, as it is often proposed wish to promote it indefinitely. It was not an issue involving a grab for power, but a measure taken to prevent others from abusing it. The Girondins were the cause of the war, exacerbated the civil war, and gave the first blow of the Terror. Are they therefore blameless? Is it therefore Robespierre's fault that the Montagne had to win the war the Girondins had no idea how to fight and prevent internal enemies from murdering the nascent Republic?
And how do these circumstances have anything in common with those of later 20th century revolutions? Do these revolutions even have a figure comparable to Robespierre? Not at all. But they had a precedent in the French Revolution--and the opportunity to learn from its mistakes. They chose not to take these lessons, and that makes their actions reprehensible. Who could claim similarly that Robespierre and his fellow-revolutionaries could have anticipated the 20th century? That they even shared common principles with these later revolutionaries? It is ludicrous to place the blame for actions taking place in the 20th century on the people of the 18th. These 20th century revolutionaries may have adopted Robespierre as their emblem, but is that proof that he would have liked them? From what I can tell his principles were vastly different from theirs. When are those who accuse Robespierre going to realize that so-called "Jacobinism" does not equal Bolshevism?
Oh, and one more thing:
Do those who accuse him of paranoia about plots realize that it was a plot which felled him?
--S
