“The most violent terrorists and oppressors of others have always been the utopians. The French Revolution turned violent and the guillotine was introduced to attempt to terrorize actual humans into behaving according to the expectations of the utopianists. The leaders of the Soviet Revolution were no slower or more squeamish in following the same route.”
Not necessarily. If anything, the Utopians are only the second-most violent terrorists and oppressors of others. The ones who actually ARE the most violent, and arguably the worst of them, are the dystopians. And I can name a few during the French Revolution. In particular, the Marquis de Sade (yes, he was indeed very much involved with the French Revolution and Reign of Terror. Heck, you could argue that he fired the first shot at Bastille). And if you read what he had to say, it’s pretty obvious he had absolutely no desire for utopia, and if anything just wanted to make things worse just for a sheer kick. This was the guy who acted as the namesake for “sadism” after all. In fact, after being recruited by the Jacobins, he became one of its most radical members, and was specifically assigned to the Section des Piques, before ultimately being locked up again when even Robespierre couldn’t tolerate him any longer. Did I mention that for them to be “true republicans” in his view, he thought they should enact a law that allowed people free access to another person’s bodies? Essentially legalizing rape, in other words?
And on that note, we might as well include those directly inspired by Sade during that time, such as Jean-Baptiste Carrier, whose infamous “Republican Marriages” at the Loire he specifically described, borrowing a term coined by Sade himself, as being “Le flambeau de la philosophie”. Or how about the guillotines at Arras that were orchestrated by Joseph LeBon and his wife? That was also taken directly from one of Sade’s books, literally in this case since they actually stripped the freshly decapitated victims and put them in poses mirroring the illustrations for 120 Nights of Sodom. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn even indicated that Sade was pretty much tied with Rousseau as being the most influential person in the French Revolution (and Rousseau is probably closer to a utopianist)
And while we’re at it, Marx and to a certain extent his followers would be closer to an adherer to dystopia than to utopia, considering that he specifically advocated for not only reenacting Robespierre’s Reign of Terror, but also making it even gorier than ever before. I’ll even quote it for you: “Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793…When our time comes, we shall not conceal terrorism with hypocritical phrases. . . The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envisage it.” Source: Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, vol. vi pp 503-505, final issue of Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 18, 1849. Quoted in Thomas G. West, Marx and Lenin, The Claremont Institute
And, oh, I’m not finished yet. Remember Sade and his ideology? Well, he got a follower centuries later by the name of Michel Foucault, and even he thought Sade didn’t go far enough. He also advocated that people give into their basest instincts and be, as Joker in The Dark Knight put it, little more than a common criminal. Going a bit further than Marx, he actually advocated repeating the September Massacres, and refused to promote courts, even Socialist ones. And during a debate with Chomsky, he actually advocated that everyone basically commit all the murder they want and upon gaining any power turn right around and oppress others. You can read up on that guy in the following links:
*http://www.conservapedia.com/Michel_Foucault
*http://www4.uwm.edu/c21/conferences/2008since1968/foucault_maoists.pdf
*https://usefulstooges.com/2016/10/14/totally-amoral-michel-foucault/
*https://chomsky.info/1971xxxx/
*https://stream.org/foucault-intellectuals-venerate-sado-masochistic-suicidal-drug-addict/
So, yeah.
“According to Marxist/Leninist theory, there are four phases to the revolution:
1. Revolution of the proletariat
2. The dictatorship of the proletariat
3. The withering away of the state
4. Ultimate freedom of the collective
Problem is: Phase 3 never seems to happen. “
The answer’s simple, really: Marx when he advocated for the “withering away of the state” was truly advocating for it to “wither away” the same way the French state did under the French Revolutionaries under Robespierre. Create a Wild West-style anarchistic area where people are free to commit all the murder and horrific acts their basest desires ever wanted, as you can see in the quote I posted.
But I do ultimately agree. The Bolsheviks were NOT good people, not even at the start, and Trotsky would have been as bad as if not worse than Stalin if he took over (probably going all “killing fields” on Russia as one person put it). And based on the fact that he wanted “permanent revolution”, a desire that was ironically echoed by Ernst Rohm of Germany, it’s pretty clear he’s closer to the dystopian view than the utopian view.
Minor point, it's always bothered me that our Revolution and the French Revolution share the same last name. Quite different.
My one disagreement.
2. The dictatorship of the proletariat.....on to three and four.
Dictatorship requires leadership. At which point the concentration of power is established. Actually in point 1, revolution does't emerge from within. It also requires leadership.
It gave Robespierre supreme power.
There are all kinds of madmen in the world, but those who are purely destructive don't usually attain great power.
Thanks for those links.
L
Ping to post 47.
L