3 ms·

Napoleon was a bloody dictator, he shouldn't be celebrated by someone supposed to represent the republic like Macron. Did he celebrate the first french republic

Napoleon was a bloody dictator, he shouldn't be celebrated by someone supposed to represent the republic like Macron. Did he celebrate the first french republic in September? No, because he is from/married into the old french bourgeoisie, that's who he represents and works for given his terrible record.

bleeding 6y ago
The first French Republic was very much a bourgeois government so I’m not sure why his marriage would keep him from celebrating it.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  > The first French Republic was very much a bourgeois government so I’m not sure why his marriage would keep him from celebrating it. The first republic is the foundation of the french state. What's next, Macron celebrating Louis the XVI?
watwut 6y ago
Reminder that "bourgeoisie" means "the middle class". Most of us here on HN are bourgeoisie or higher. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being from the middle class. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with government people being middle class either, in an ideal economy, bourgeoisie is the most common kind of citizen.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  The French overthrew and executed much of their upper class, so their middle class became the elite there, and that's why the term is used in that way. Compared to the UK where there is still an upper class.
  - paleotrope 6y ago
    That is such a simplification of the actual history as to be basically meaningless.
- kiliantics 6y ago
  That's one definition. Marx defines it specifically as the class of people who own the means of production.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  > Reminder that "bourgeoisie" means "the middle class" No, "bourgeoisie" doesn't mean "middle class". I'm using the Marxist definition of the word, I'm not including a household on teacher's salary who own a home. That's what the actual middle-class is in France.
batmansmk 6y ago
What you say about Napoleon's political ambition is true. But talking about Napoleon only as a dictator is not understanding the historical context. The Republic was also very bloody; the times were bloody, not just under the rule of the corsican. Isaac Newton dealt in slaves, Euler worked directly under the order of a bloody dictator... yet we can still talk and study their life, right? Remember, we will all look terrible in 200 years from now, maybe because we use gasoline, or eat meat, or buy products made by children, or our capitalism, or our positino towards sex change or racial equality or whatever will shock people's future ethics and morale value. Maybe when I went shopping this morning I committed 15 cardinal sins of the future.
Renaud 6y ago
The legacy of Napoleon is much more complex than that. Want it or not, he's both a terrible conqueror animated by a thirst for power at all cost and also a builder of modern institutions still in use today. The same things could be said of most kings, queens and emperors of Europe across the ages. Reigns without mercy, enslaving and conquering, abusing and torturing, yet they cemented the future and a good portion of the institutions they set up are still in use today in one form or another. And yet people still honour their memory and their legacy. Napoleon's reign caught up because the state was in trouble at the end of the XVIII century (insecurity, lack of funds, a general state of disarray). The rapid change in political structure -with all its instabilities- after the Revolution made (some) people yearn for stability. And thus Napoleon seized power through a coup. And that's how the country got governed by a dictator, who proclaimed himself Emperor and started to chip away at people's freedoms in the name of stability. A somewhat still-current cautionary tale...

bleeding 6y ago

The first French Republic was very much a bourgeois government so I’m not sure why his marriage would keep him from celebrating it.

throw_m239339 6y ago
> The first French Republic was very much a bourgeois government so I’m not sure why his marriage would keep him from celebrating it. The first republic is the foundation of the french state. What's next, Macron celebrating Louis the XVI?

watwut 6y ago

Reminder that "bourgeoisie" means "the middle class". Most of us here on HN are bourgeoisie or higher. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being from the middle class. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with government people being middle class either, in an ideal economy, bourgeoisie is the most common kind of citizen.

chrisseaton 6y ago
The French overthrew and executed much of their upper class, so their middle class became the elite there, and that's why the term is used in that way. Compared to the UK where there is still an upper class.
- paleotrope 6y ago
  That is such a simplification of the actual history as to be basically meaningless.
kiliantics 6y ago
That's one definition. Marx defines it specifically as the class of people who own the means of production.
throw_m239339 6y ago
> Reminder that "bourgeoisie" means "the middle class" No, "bourgeoisie" doesn't mean "middle class". I'm using the Marxist definition of the word, I'm not including a household on teacher's salary who own a home. That's what the actual middle-class is in France.

batmansmk 6y ago

What you say about Napoleon's political ambition is true. But talking about Napoleon only as a dictator is not understanding the historical context. The Republic was also very bloody; the times were bloody, not just under the rule of the corsican. Isaac Newton dealt in slaves, Euler worked directly under the order of a bloody dictator... yet we can still talk and study their life, right? Remember, we will all look terrible in 200 years from now, maybe because we use gasoline, or eat meat, or buy products made by children, or our capitalism, or our positino towards sex change or racial equality or whatever will shock people's future ethics and morale value. Maybe when I went shopping this morning I committed 15 cardinal sins of the future.

Renaud 6y ago

The legacy of Napoleon is much more complex than that. Want it or not, he's both a terrible conqueror animated by a thirst for power at all cost and also a builder of modern institutions still in use today. The same things could be said of most kings, queens and emperors of Europe across the ages. Reigns without mercy, enslaving and conquering, abusing and torturing, yet they cemented the future and a good portion of the institutions they set up are still in use today in one form or another. And yet people still honour their memory and their legacy. Napoleon's reign caught up because the state was in trouble at the end of the XVIII century (insecurity, lack of funds, a general state of disarray). The rapid change in political structure -with all its instabilities- after the Revolution made (some) people yearn for stability. And thus Napoleon seized power through a coup. And that's how the country got governed by a dictator, who proclaimed himself Emperor and started to chip away at people's freedoms in the name of stability. A somewhat still-current cautionary tale...