Was Napoleon Good?

[Koralo]

That moment when capitalists and communists start a war on a topic that have nothing to do with it, adding some "Napoleon" here and there in their sentences, to look as if they were still in the subject. Not as if anyone were going to convince anyone else of anything anyway.

[United Marxist Nations]

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.

>implying Stalinism isn't just a dumb name given to discredit socialism in one country.

[Ganos Lao]

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.

1. Is that so? Because it sure didn't look like it with the Party elite hoarding all the luxuries while the proles had to wait in long lines in the freezing cold for a mere loaf of bread. The CPSU was little more than another exploiter of Man. The Russian people, frustrated with the autocracy of the Tzar, merely traded it for that of the Party boss. You can't honestly tell me that the guys who ran gulags, shoved dissidents into asylums, repressed any and all forms of self expression contrary to Party thought, et cetera, et cetera were all about improving the general welfare of the human race. That's bullshit, it really is. Also, war and empire? Again, what's the difference between the Soviets propping up puppet states in Eastern Europe and what Napoleon did? And Lenin denounced it all the while going on to declare war on Poland, Finland, etc.

It's not absurd to claim, by the way, because "Marxism-Leninism" was never the Soviet ideology. That was just some bullshit, shallow and worthless like a corporate advertising campaign. The Soviet government was always little more than a ruthless band of thugs and sycophants who leeched off the people like parasites. It's no wonder that they were all cast aside when the people grew tired of their crap in the eighties, you know.

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.

This is exactly what I talked about in the other thread, but in light of the topic being about Napoleon, I'll expand accordingly.

Bourgeois assertions? Even his own daughter is on record agreeing with such views. Is she too bourgeois? Slander? Really? It's slander to depict Stalin as a paranoid nutjob who ultimately is the poster child for how fucked up people can get after being abused as a child? His whole time in office was an abuse of power because it went against everything that the Russian Revolution was supposedly about. And denigrate proletarian dictatorships? What, the fact that they leeched off the people themselves isn't enough? A better label for them would be opportunist dictatorships.

When you mention "real gains for the proletariat," I have to chuckle. I mean, your whole ideology is based on the view that the "capitalist" puts profit before people.

Yet time and time again, even though the capitalist doing it is bad, we see your kind doing it yourselves. Sure, Stalin was an asshole, but he did this and he did that, so we shouldn't be too hard on the guy. That's putting profit over people, isn't it? I mean, God forbid that people industrialize countries and defeat evildoers without purging people en masse. Yeah, Stalin did both, but ultimately it doesn't make him any better. And he didn't single handedly defeat the Nazis: the Allies as a whole did that.

And speaking of the Nazis, what's to stop me from praising certain aspects of Hitler's rule? Sure, he gassed six million Jews, but hey he cared for animals and the environment. Would you have a moral problem with me doing that?

Napoleon? He spread the ideas of meritocracy, freedom of religion, and equality before the law (emancipating the Jews) all across the Continent. Why is it, thus, that he is little more than a brutal imperialist warlord who did nothing of any value while Stalin isn't? Do you suggest that Napoleon had no real intention to spread these ideas? Also, how do you contend Stalin wasn't an imperialist when he essentially propped up puppet states in Eastern Europe? Unless you want me to believe that the people willingly chose to be ruled by these puppets. Also, the Baltic States: Isn't it not historical fact that they had no say in their annexation? Stalin chose to claim them for himself without their consent, after all. Is this not imperialism?

So, essentially, what we have here is that the only reason you dislike Napoleon is because he represents everything you're bound by your ideology to despise. It doesn't matter that Napoleon did some good because the narrative doesn't allow for it. You have to keep everything in order, which means that anything that isn't waving a red flag is ultimately a threat to the "proletariat" and yet, oh so often, those who claim to look out for them are often their worst enemy.

[United Marxist Nations]

Tbh, Dabureu, if I had been alive, Napoleon would have been my senpai.

[Ganos Lao]

That moment when capitalists and communists start a war on a topic that have nothing to do with it, adding some "Napoleon" here and there in their sentences, to look as if they were still in the subject. Not as if anyone were going to convince anyone else of anything anyway.

Hey, if you have something to say, post with your main nation.

I'm all for discussion. We can discuss how you presume we're "capitalists" who want to "start a war" or how the posts you're reading are indeed still in the subject.

What really is the problem here? Is it really wrong for me to deduce that it is hypocritical for someone to say that Napoleon was a brutal warlord when they praise the Soviet Union?

[Ganos Lao]

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

>implying Stalinism isn't just a dumb name given to discredit socialism in one country.

>implying Stalinism is actually a legitimate ideology of some sort.

[Daburuetchi]

Tbh, Dabureu, if I had been alive, Napoleon would have been my senpai.

He still would have been a garbage tier husbando tho

[Ardoki]

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

>implying Stalinism isn't just a dumb name given to discredit socialism in one country.

Socialism in One Country was bound to fail.

Marx said that socialism could never be implemented in a backward country, such as the Russian Empire; and he predicted that it would lead to an authoritarian state. The only way that revolution could have succeeded, was if it spread to the advanced capitalist countries; both Lenin and Trotsky were betting on that for the success of the entire revolution.

[Conserative Morality]

Tbh, Dabureu, if I had been alive, Napoleon would have been my senpai.

Have you ever read the Memoirs of Napoleon by de Bourrienne? They paint a fascinating picture of the man.

[Ganos Lao]

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

The Soviets were some of the best imperialists around. The European colonialists would've been in awe. I bet Napoleon would've found something to take from them too.

[United Marxist Nations]

>implying Stalinism isn't just a dumb name given to discredit socialism in one country.

>implying Stalinism is actually a legitimate ideology of some sort.

That is my point, "Stalinism" is just a bullshit name to discredit anyone who thinks Stalin was right about the revolution not being able to be exported in the aftermath of the Civil War.

[United Marxist Nations]

Tbh, Dabureu, if I had been alive, Napoleon would have been my senpai.

Have you ever read the Memoirs of Napoleon by de Bourrienne? They paint a fascinating picture of the man.

I have it! But I have not read them.

[Daburuetchi]

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

The Soviets were some of the best imperialists around. The European colonialists would've been in awe. I bet Napoleon would've found something to take from them too.

Bullshit. Did the Soviet Union commit imperialist actions in Ethiopia, and Eastern Europe. Yes. Did they engage in the mass looting and exploitation of these peoples no. In fact the Soviet Union invested heavily in Warsaw Pact country at great expense to itself.

[United Marxist Nations]

>implying Stalinism isn't just a dumb name given to discredit socialism in one country.

Socialism in One Country was bound to fail.

Marx said that socialism could never be implemented in a backward country, such as the Russian Empire; and he predicted that it would lead to an authoritarian state. The only way that revolution could have succeeded, was if it spread to the advanced capitalist countries; both Lenin and Trotsky were betting on that for the success of the entire revolution.

Yes, too bad that it didn't, so they had to hope and wait that the rest of the world would come around while they tried to do as best they could holed up in Russia.

[Ganos Lao]

Tbh, Dabureu, if I had been alive, Napoleon would have been my senpai.

Have you ever read the Memoirs of Napoleon by de Bourrienne? They paint a fascinating picture of the man.

The story of Betsy Balcombe is also pretty fascinating, I'd say.

[Ardoki]

Socialism in One Country was bound to fail.

Marx said that socialism could never be implemented in a backward country, such as the Russian Empire; and he predicted that it would lead to an authoritarian state. The only way that revolution could have succeeded, was if it spread to the advanced capitalist countries; both Lenin and Trotsky were betting on that for the success of the entire revolution.

Yes, too bad that it didn't, so they had to hope and wait that the rest of the world would come around while they tried to do as best they could holed up in Russia.

Marx predicted exactly what would happen if a socialist revolution occurred in Russia. Lenin and Trotsky knew of Lenin's predictions and warnings, and foolishly tried to implement socialism anyway; it didn't' end well.

[Ganos Lao]

The Soviets were some of the best imperialists around. The European colonialists would've been in awe. I bet Napoleon would've found something to take from them too.

Bullshit. Did the Soviet Union commit imperialist actions in Ethiopia, and Eastern Europe. Yes. Did they engage in the mass looting and exploitation of these peoples no. In fact the Soviet Union invested heavily in Warsaw Pact country at great expense to itself.

So propping up puppet regimes that governed as oppressive tyrants isn't exploitation? Just look at what happened in Romania. The Soviet puppets there practically made it a hotbed of AIDS and generally ran that country into the ground before, frustrated by such gross exploitation, the people rose up and dealt with the tyrants.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You claim Napoleon was a brutal warlord who went about conquering poor innocent nations, but when your heroes do it, you think it was all actually a good thing.

I don't get how you can make such a claim. It just reeks of hypocrisy to me.

[Daburuetchi]

Bullshit. Did the Soviet Union commit imperialist actions in Ethiopia, and Eastern Europe. Yes. Did they engage in the mass looting and exploitation of these peoples no. In fact the Soviet Union invested heavily in Warsaw Pact country at great expense to itself.

So propping up puppet regimes that governed as oppressive tyrants isn't exploitation? Just look at what happened in Romania. The Soviet puppets there practically made it a hotbed of AIDS and generally ran that country into the ground before, frustrated by such gross exploitation, the people rose up and dealt with the tyrants.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You claim Napoleon was a brutal warlord who went about conquering poor innocent nations, but when your heroes do it, you think it was all actually a good thing.

I don't get how you can make such a claim. It just reeks of hypocrisy to me.

What? Ceaucescu and his predecessor Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej opposed Soviet influence in their country and shifted toward the West. The people rose up because the IMF shock therapy threatments caused mass shortages since Romania was forced to mass export in order to pay back its debts to the West.

You're also discounting the fact that most Eastern European countries did have legitmate revolutions.

[Russo-Byzantine Empire]

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.

I don't know, what was Athens per than a slave economy whose women would be jealous of the level of freedom provided in Saudi Arabia?

[Daburuetchi]

Yes, too bad that it didn't, so they had to hope and wait that the rest of the world would come around while they tried to do as best they could holed up in Russia.

Marx predicted exactly what would happen if a socialist revolution occurred in Russia. Lenin and Trotsky knew of Lenin's predictions and warnings, and foolishly tried to implement socialism anyway; it didn't' end well.

Marx said no such thing. He stated that Russia could not have a revolution since Socialism would spring from the contradiction between the private ownership of social means of production and the growing class conscience of the proletariat. He made no prediction of Russia descending to despotism. Bakunin is the one that claim the dictatorship of the proletariat would be despoitic.
Lenin made no such warining. He even stated "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country, taken singly."

Trotsky essentially asserted the age only meshevik position that the peasantry is to backward to accept socialism and as such the USSR should just give up. Marxism is a guide not a dogma and material condtions dicated the need for socialism in one country

[Socialist Tera]

He was good for smashing serfdom, bad for bringing back slavery. Robespierre was better.

[Ardoki]

He was good for smashing serfdom, bad for bringing back slavery. Robespierre was better.

I'm a fan of Robespierre. He was definitely more progressive than Napoleon.

But you can't deny he got a bit carried away with the Reign of Terror, and that forced his departure.

[Socialist Tera]

He was good for smashing serfdom, bad for bringing back slavery. Robespierre was better.

I'm a fan of Robespierre. He was definitely more progressive than Napoleon.

But you can't deny he got a bit carried away with the Reign of Terror, and that forced his departure.

Robespierre was a man ahead of his time.

[Russo-Byzantine Empire]

Oh god fucking dammit, can we please stop being apologists for maniacal mass murderers? Yes, it was bad that Napoleon brought back slavery, and yes, it was good that Robespierre got rid of it, but seriously, the man was insane. He maintained an almost totalitarian grip on society, you could be killed for voicing you opinion, along with your whole family. Children were murdered just for being noble. Robespierre was not someone I would want within a universe of governance.

[Finland SSR]

Napoleaon spread the Napoleonic Code throughout Europe, as well as the metric system - both incredibly important reforms, with the former being the basis for the current legal system, while the other for SI. He was an important military theoretician, and his military strategy, introduction of the corps and the division, more fluid military staff, wider front and destruction warfare, as well as greater emphasis on military had great influence over all of 19th century warfare. He made a number of reforms in the educational system as well, which became the basis for the modern French education system. Also, his reign saw the final abolition of serfdom in countries under his sphere of influence, which is a thing I, as a Lithuanian, am exceptionally thankful for, because Napoleon did the same to Lithuanian Sudovia, where, thanks to no serfdom, the people ended up wealthier, more educated and became the basis for the later Lithuanian nationalism movement.

At the same time, he was a megalomaniac despot who institutionalized looting and plunder, reinstated slavery in French overseas territories, and throughout his reign, Europe saw 17 years of warfare, 6 million people dead, France bankrupt and her overseas colonies lost. So it's 50-50, I suppose.