3 ms·

>I mean, what would you expect of a magazine that named itself after a bunch of "heroes" of the French Revolution whose own extreme, fanatical leftism was a pio

>I mean, what would you expect of a magazine that named itself after a bunch of "heroes" of the French Revolution whose own extreme, fanatical leftism was a pioneer for mass murder of civilians in the name of ideological purity. >The name of the magazine derives from the 1938 book The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution by C. L. R. James in which James ascribes the Haitian revolutionists a greater purity in regards to their attachment to the ideals of the French Revolution than the French Jacobins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(magazine)#Title_and_logo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(magazine)#Title_and_l...

helloworld11 4y ago
Fair point about the naming origin, but I think it's worth elaborating again: The ideals of the French Revolution were themselves very problematic. The French Jacobins adapted these "ideals" of the French Revolution in their most extreme, taken to its conclusion form, and the result was a blood bath. Ergo, those very ideals, applied to messy human beings, created a murderously greater mess. It's tiresome to see an endless stream of justifications for extreme socialist leftism with the notion that it only went wrong because "people didn't live up to it". People shouldn't have to live up to an ideology. The ideology should realistically adapt itself to fundamental aspects of the human condition, especially if not doing so means killing innocent human beings and destroying much of their peaceful social organization. If someone were to say that Nazism would be great "if only all people were blood and soil aryans", it would rightfully be considered grotesque. With extreme socialism, the expectation of people to act completely at odds with our non-collectivist nature (because we're not ants) is taken as a defect os us instead of this woefully, deeply wrong line of thinking. Again, it's grotesque and hypocritical.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  >The ideals of the French Revolution were themselves very problematic. The ideals of the French Revolution were liberty, equality, and fraternity. Largely mimicking the American ideals, and the ones that most of Europe eventually claim to have adapted.

helloworld11 4y ago

Fair point about the naming origin, but I think it's worth elaborating again: The ideals of the French Revolution were themselves very problematic. The French Jacobins adapted these "ideals" of the French Revolution in their most extreme, taken to its conclusion form, and the result was a blood bath. Ergo, those very ideals, applied to messy human beings, created a murderously greater mess. It's tiresome to see an endless stream of justifications for extreme socialist leftism with the notion that it only went wrong because "people didn't live up to it". People shouldn't have to live up to an ideology. The ideology should realistically adapt itself to fundamental aspects of the human condition, especially if not doing so means killing innocent human beings and destroying much of their peaceful social organization. If someone were to say that Nazism would be great "if only all people were blood and soil aryans", it would rightfully be considered grotesque. With extreme socialism, the expectation of people to act completely at odds with our non-collectivist nature (because we're not ants) is taken as a defect os us instead of this woefully, deeply wrong line of thinking. Again, it's grotesque and hypocritical.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
>The ideals of the French Revolution were themselves very problematic. The ideals of the French Revolution were liberty, equality, and fraternity. Largely mimicking the American ideals, and the ones that most of Europe eventually claim to have adapted.