Was Napoleon Good?

[Russo-Byzantine Empire]

No, he was a war hungry dictator that came to power via a coup.

What does that change? Don't all revolutions happen via coups? The difference is the result, and Napoleon was the first one who made the idea of equality work.

[Togeria]

At least me personally I put Napoleon in the same boat with the likes of Bismarck. Both did some good, some bad, but in the grand scheme it could be argued that both were necessary.

[Daburuetchi]

Again we are getting teary eyed over a brutal warlord. A highly intelligent and proficient warlord but nonetheless a warlord

Lenin isn't exactly that much different.

Both sought to use violence and oppression to keep power and control over their respective states. He subverted democracy to take power. Instigated a brutal civil war to wipe out opposition. Both went on to annex other states that had been independent.

The USA and twelve other countries invaded and occupied 3/4s of the Soviet Union along with the Whites. That's not instigating a civil war. He also did not annex any states. The Soviet Union gave Finland its independance and the constitution stipluated that any Republic could leave the USSR. Regardless the topic is regards to Napoleon.

[Morr]

No, he was a war hungry dictator that came to power via a coup.

What does that change? Don't all revolutions happen via coups? The difference is the result, and Napoleon was the first one who made the idea of equality work.

What is Athens.

[Taruda]

No, he was a war hungry dictator that came to power via a coup.

What does that change? Don't all revolutions happen via coups? The difference is the result, and Napoleon was the first one who made the idea of equality work.

He had nothin with the french revolution, at least during this time he was an unimportant figure. The first who started to implement the idea of equality were the governments before him. He also first came to fame when he butchered some village of 3000.

[Daburuetchi]

Again we are getting teary eyed over a brutal warlord. A highly intelligent and proficient warlord but nonetheless a warlord

I don't see how someone who thinks Joseph Stalin was a good guy could complain about anyone else being brutal.

1) Not related to the topic
2) Never stated Stalin was a good guy, I agree with some of his theoretical positions and understand the rationale of industrialization and purges in the context of imperialist encirclement

[Ganos Lao]

I like to think that Camus said it best when he observed that,

Gotta love me some Camus.

He was on point, really. I mean, how common was it that the Party members became the new aristocracy? The very same people who talked about how the capitalists put their greed and their profits before the interests of proles had essentially become their enemies. While peasants starved and workers toiled, the Party members leeched off of them, brutally repressing anyone who dared to complain.

At least Napoleon was honest about his desire for centralized authority in his own person.

[Daburuetchi]

I don't see how someone who thinks Joseph Stalin was a good guy could complain about anyone else being brutal.

Or even Lenin. Or really many of the communist state leaders in history.

At the end of the day, even socialist and communist revolutions will require bloodshed and doing terrible things. This is anecdotal, but most of the communists I've interacted with are also supportive of oppressing the members of the bourgeois after a revolution in order to protect it. So, not too much difference, at the end of the day.

And you think the bourgeois state has never engaged in or does not continue to engage in the opression of the proletariat?

[Ganos Lao]

I don't see how someone who thinks Joseph Stalin was a good guy could complain about anyone else being brutal.

1) Not related to the topic
2) Never stated Stalin was a good guy, I agree with some of his theoretical positions and understand the rationale of industrialization and purges in the context of imperialist encirclement

1). It is indeed related to the topic. You said that Napoleon was little more than a brutal warlord, and I took issue with this statement based on your like for Stalin. Your fondness for the Soviet Union in general is sort of hypocritical in general. There's no difference between the CPSU and Bonaparte and company.
2). You basically went on a spree in one thread defending him and the Soviet Union from any involvement in the Katyn Massacre and generally beefed him and company up to be these really great guys who were just trying to look out for the proles of the world. Now you're saying that oh, he just had a few good points?

[Napkiraly]

Lenin isn't exactly that much different.

Both sought to use violence and oppression to keep power and control over their respective states. He subverted democracy to take power. Instigated a brutal civil war to wipe out opposition. Both went on to annex other states that had been independent.

The USA and twelve other countries invaded and occupied 3/4s of the Soviet Union along with the Whites. That's not instigating a civil war. He also did not annex any states. The Soviet Union gave Finland its independance and the constitution stipluated that any Republic could leave the USSR. Regardless the topic is regards to Napoleon.

The allied intervention wasn't until late spring 1918, where as the civil war started with Bolshevik's launching a coup in 1917.

Also mind reminding me what happened to Georgia in 1921? Where it underwent forced regime change at the end of the Red Army's guns, to impose a Bolshevik regime.

Same happened in Azerbaijan. Same happened in Armenia. Same with Ukraine. And the Bolshevik's supported the Finnish Red Guards and gave them logistical support and attempted military support. They only gave up once the Finnish Whites had won and they were incapable of pressing on due to other concerns.

No, we're pointing out how it's hypocritical to denounce people who admire Napoleon because he did bad things, oppressed people, and was an imperialist while you go on supporting Lenin who did bad things, oppressed people, and was an imperialist.

[Ganos Lao]

Or even Lenin. Or really many of the communist state leaders in history.

At the end of the day, even socialist and communist revolutions will require bloodshed and doing terrible things. This is anecdotal, but most of the communists I've interacted with are also supportive of oppressing the members of the bourgeois after a revolution in order to protect it. So, not too much difference, at the end of the day.

And you think the bourgeois state has never engaged in or does not continue to engage in the opression of the proletariat?

But it's not oppression when the "communists" do it, of course. When looking at the fathers of the Soviet Union, you get the impression that they were just jealous of the Tzar and the aristocracy, that they were like small whiny children who complain too much about how another group of kids isn't sharing their toys with them. All the Soviet Union essentially was was the old Russian Empire in a new coat of paint.

But to keep the thread on point, again, I have to ask why you think the Soviets were any better than Napoleon. What makes Napoleon a brutal warlord and not your heroes?

[Napkiraly]

Or even Lenin. Or really many of the communist state leaders in history.

At the end of the day, even socialist and communist revolutions will require bloodshed and doing terrible things. This is anecdotal, but most of the communists I've interacted with are also supportive of oppressing the members of the bourgeois after a revolution in order to protect it. So, not too much difference, at the end of the day.

And you think the bourgeois state has never engaged in or does not continue to engage in the opression of the proletariat?

So you fully admit that oppression isn't inherently wrong and that it's really only a matter of who is being oppressed that determines whether or not it is good or bad?

There is little difference between Napoleon and the Bolshevik leadership. You could say Napoleon was a bit better since he wasn't as oppressive and at least was honest about his intentions.

[Ganos Lao]

No, we're pointing out how it's hypocritical to denounce people who admire Napoleon because he did bad things, oppressed people, and was an imperialist while you go on supporting Lenin who did bad things, oppressed people, and was an imperialist.

Exactly.

I mean, what difference is there between Napoleon's conquest of Europe and the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe? Between the Continental System and the Warsaw Pact?

Last I checked, the Baltic states weren't exactly all that keen on forsaking their status as independent nations. And just ask the Poles about how they feel about Napoleon in comparison to the Soviets.

[Daburuetchi]

1) Not related to the topic
2) Never stated Stalin was a good guy, I agree with some of his theoretical positions and understand the rationale of industrialization and purges in the context of imperialist encirclement

1). It is indeed related to the topic. You said that Napoleon was little more than a brutal warlord, and I took issue with this statement based on your like for Stalin. Your fondness for the Soviet Union in general is sort of hypocritical in general. There's no difference between the CPSU and Bonaparte and company.
2). You basically went on a spree in one thread defending him and the Soviet Union from any involvement in the Katyn Massacre and generally beefed him and company up to be these really great guys who were just trying to look out for the proles of the world. Now you're saying that oh, he just had a few good points?

I never gauged Napoleon relative to Stalin. There is a profound difference between the CPSU and Bonaparte since one sought to improve the general welfare and end the exploitation of man by man and the other was and empire. Claiming the Marxism-Leninism is tantamount to imperialism is absurd seeing how Lenin denounced Russia's involvement in the First World War.

Yes I defend certain aspects of the Union and Stalin which have real merit. I do not think Stalin is a good role model and he did commit great abuses of power but the bourgois assertions that he was cartoonishly evil are absurd given the context and that slander of Stalin is used to denigrate Proletarian dictatorships as a whole. There is not denying that the Soviet Union did indeed make real gains for the proletariat and saved humanity by defeating the nazis.

[Ganos Lao]

And you think the bourgeois state has never engaged in or does not continue to engage in the opression of the proletariat?

So you fully admit that oppression isn't inherently wrong and that it's really only a matter of who is being oppressed that determines whether or not it is good or bad?

His ideology demands the view that the "capitalist" oppresses the "proletariat" irregardless of the actual actions of the "capitalist" towards the "proletariat."

It's generally considered poor form to generalize all Jews and blacks, and oftentimes these people will be the first to tell you this. But yet when they generalize people who just so happen to be wealthy, it's merely calling them out for some supposed act of oppression they were implicit in simply by existing as a person of wealth.

[Daburuetchi]

And you think the bourgeois state has never engaged in or does not continue to engage in the opression of the proletariat?

So you fully admit that oppression isn't inherently wrong and that it's really only a matter of who is being oppressed that determines whether or not it is good or bad?

There is little difference between Napoleon and the Bolshevik leadership. You could say Napoleon was a bit better since he wasn't as oppressive and at least was honest about his intentions.

No oppression is inherently wrong and unjust but there is no avoiding it in the context of the world being divided into classes. There is a material necessity of their being a vigorious class dictatorship as a result. There is a profound difference since Napoleon only furthered the material interest of a small cliche whereas the Proletarian dictatorship is half a state since the majority are the ones doing the suppression

[United Marxist Nations]

1). It is indeed related to the topic. You said that Napoleon was little more than a brutal warlord, and I took issue with this statement based on your like for Stalin. Your fondness for the Soviet Union in general is sort of hypocritical in general. There's no difference between the CPSU and Bonaparte and company.
2). You basically went on a spree in one thread defending him and the Soviet Union from any involvement in the Katyn Massacre and generally beefed him and company up to be these really great guys who were just trying to look out for the proles of the world. Now you're saying that oh, he just had a few good points?

I never gauged Napoleon relative to Stalin. There is a profound difference between the CPSU and Bonaparte since one sought to improve the general welfare and end the exploitation of man by man and the other was and empire. Claiming the Marxism-Leninism is tantamount to imperialism is absurd seeing how Lenin denounced Russia's involvement in the First World War.

Yes I defend certain aspects of the Union and Stalin which have real merit. I do not think Stalin is a good role model and he did commit great abuses of power but the bourgois assertions that he was cartoonishly evil are absurd given the context and that slander of Stalin is used to denigrate Proletarian dictatorships as a whole. There is not denying that the Soviet Union did indeed make real gains for the proletariat and saved humanity by defeating the nazis.

I agree wholly with the second paragraph. That said, there are many similarities, in that Bonaparte was also not cartoonishly evil and his poor reputation is mostly due to Anglo propaganda against him. Napoleon broke just as many empires as he created, and, regardless of whether they were puppet states or not, created states for nations, like Poland, which had been under joint Prusso-Russian control for some time.

[Daburuetchi]

So you fully admit that oppression isn't inherently wrong and that it's really only a matter of who is being oppressed that determines whether or not it is good or bad?

His ideology demands the view that the "capitalist" oppresses the "proletariat" irregardless of the actual actions of the "capitalist" towards the "proletariat."

It's generally considered poor form to generalize all Jews and blacks, and oftentimes these people will be the first to tell you this. But yet when they generalize people who just so happen to be wealthy, it's merely calling them out for some supposed act of oppression they were implicit in simply by existing as a person of wealth.

That's probably because classes are different than ethnic groups and it is obvious to anyone that their is indeed and omnipotence of wealth in politics. Can you seriously claim that the 2008 world economic crisis did not benefit bankers at the expense of the masses?

[United Marxist Nations]

So you fully admit that oppression isn't inherently wrong and that it's really only a matter of who is being oppressed that determines whether or not it is good or bad?

There is little difference between Napoleon and the Bolshevik leadership. You could say Napoleon was a bit better since he wasn't as oppressive and at least was honest about his intentions.

No oppression is inherently wrong and unjust but there is no avoiding it in the context of the world being divided into classes. There is a material necessity of their being a vigorious class dictatorship as a result. There is a profound difference since Napoleon only furthered the material interest of a small cliche whereas the Proletarian dictatorship is half a state since the majority are the ones doing the suppression

I assume you generally accept that, at this period of history, the bourgeois indeed represented a progressive movement, yes?

[Napkiraly]

I never gauged Napoleon relative to Stalin. There is a profound difference between the CPSU and Bonaparte since one sought to improve the general welfare and end the exploitation of man by man and the other was and empire. Claiming the Marxism-Leninism is tantamount to imperialism is absurd seeing how Lenin denounced Russia's involvement in the First World War.

Their opposition as a measure of their anti-imperialism means jack in the face of them invading and annexing various states. It's just as imperialistic to force a Bolshevik regime upon a country as it is to force a neoliberal one on them.

[Napkiraly]

So you fully admit that oppression isn't inherently wrong and that it's really only a matter of who is being oppressed that determines whether or not it is good or bad?

There is little difference between Napoleon and the Bolshevik leadership. You could say Napoleon was a bit better since he wasn't as oppressive and at least was honest about his intentions.

No oppression is inherently wrong and unjust but there is no avoiding it in the context of the world being divided into classes. There is a material necessity of their being a vigorious class dictatorship as a result. There is a profound difference since Napoleon only furthered the material interest of a small cliche whereas the Proletarian dictatorship is half a state since the majority are the ones doing the suppression

The issue being, you think that the current system is oppressive and is oppressive towards the majority. It's not the case in every country and certainly isn't felt that way by many. And if oppression is bad in every case, then it's bad to support any oppressive regime and those that create it.

Even if they are necessary, no sliding scale structure, remember?

[United Marxist Nations]

No oppression is inherently wrong and unjust but there is no avoiding it in the context of the world being divided into classes. There is a material necessity of their being a vigorious class dictatorship as a result. There is a profound difference since Napoleon only furthered the material interest of a small cliche whereas the Proletarian dictatorship is half a state since the majority are the ones doing the suppression

The issue being, you think that the current system is oppressive and is oppressive towards the majority. It's not the case in every country and certainly isn't felt that way by many. And if oppression is bad in every case, then it's bad to support any oppressive regime and those that create it.

Even if they are necessary, no sliding scale structure, remember?

Oppression is entirely necessary in any revolution, it is inherent in the act of revolution.

[Daburuetchi]

The USA and twelve other countries invaded and occupied 3/4s of the Soviet Union along with the Whites. That's not instigating a civil war. He also did not annex any states. The Soviet Union gave Finland its independance and the constitution stipluated that any Republic could leave the USSR. Regardless the topic is regards to Napoleon.

The allied intervention wasn't until late spring 1918, where as the civil war started with Bolshevik's launching a coup in 1917.

Also mind reminding me what happened to Georgia in 1921? Where it underwent forced regime change at the end of the Red Army's guns, to impose a Bolshevik regime.

Same happened in Azerbaijan. Same happened in Armenia. Same with Ukraine. And the Bolshevik's supported the Finnish Red Guards and gave them logistical support and attempted military support. They only gave up once the Finnish Whites had won and they were incapable of pressing on due to other concerns.

No, we're pointing out how it's hypocritical to denounce people who admire Napoleon because he did bad things, oppressed people, and was an imperialist while you go on supporting Lenin who did bad things, oppressed people, and was an imperialist.

These regions were already a part of the Russian Empire and such the Bolshevik took power in all these areas. They didnt annex them. They inherited them from Tsarism and legally gave them the opportunity to leave of their own choosing. The Finns declared independance before the civil war even broke out and did so because the Bolsheviks declared the right of secession.
It's not imperialism since the Soviet Union invested evenly in all their Republics. Imperialism presupposes the exploitation of these regions. As for the Baltic and Polish regime changes I am not in support of these

[Ardoki]

1). It is indeed related to the topic. You said that Napoleon was little more than a brutal warlord, and I took issue with this statement based on your like for Stalin. Your fondness for the Soviet Union in general is sort of hypocritical in general. There's no difference between the CPSU and Bonaparte and company.
2). You basically went on a spree in one thread defending him and the Soviet Union from any involvement in the Katyn Massacre and generally beefed him and company up to be these really great guys who were just trying to look out for the proles of the world. Now you're saying that oh, he just had a few good points?

I never gauged Napoleon relative to Stalin. There is a profound difference between the CPSU and Bonaparte since one sought to improve the general welfare and end the exploitation of man by man and the other was and empire. Claiming the Marxism-Leninism is tantamount to imperialism is absurd seeing how Lenin denounced Russia's involvement in the First World War.

Yes I defend certain aspects of the Union and Stalin which have real merit. I do not think Stalin is a good role model and he did commit great abuses of power but the bourgois assertions that he was cartoonishly evil are absurd given the context and that slander of Stalin is used to denigrate Proletarian dictatorships as a whole. There is not denying that the Soviet Union did indeed make real gains for the proletariat and saved humanity by defeating the nazis.

Marxism-Leninism is just Stalinism with a nicer sounding name.

[Daburuetchi]

No oppression is inherently wrong and unjust but there is no avoiding it in the context of the world being divided into classes. There is a material necessity of their being a vigorious class dictatorship as a result. There is a profound difference since Napoleon only furthered the material interest of a small cliche whereas the Proletarian dictatorship is half a state since the majority are the ones doing the suppression

I assume you generally accept that, at this period of history, the bourgeois indeed represented a progressive movement, yes?

Yes they were an ally of the peasantry in the overthrow of Feudalism and they too suppressed feudal elements and broke the back of the Church by confiscating their land.