#jaure

[postcard-from-the-past]

French socialist leader Jean Jaurès on a vintage postcard

[les-portes-du-sud]

Nous devons prendre le feu du passé et non ses cendres.

Jean Jaurès

[moamidzyism]

why did joon write a song about me 😅

[pinkprettycure]

WHAT!!!!!!! WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lonelystarbuckslover13]

Ok like honestly me disliking Matty Healy is so beyond just being like “Joe was better 😡” like Matty was literally just making racist and fatphobic jokes about ice spice and mocking Chinese and Hawaiian accents like a week or two ago and gave the most piss weak “I’m sorry if you’re offended” apology ever about it on stage like blondie I love you but what are you doing babe this man is openly, publicly and asshole

[des-jours-et-des-nuits]

Jean Jaurès Covid 2020

roches noires

[govideofun]

 Jean Jaurès, l'une des figures les plus emblématiques du socialisme français et un défenseur infatigable de la paix et de la justice sociale, est né le 3 septembre 1859 à Castres, dans le Tarn. Sa naissance marque le début d'une vie dédiée à la cause des travailleurs et à la lutte contre les injustices sociales. Cet article explore les circonstances de sa naissance, son milieu familial, et les premiers éléments de son éducation qui façonnèrent l'homme qu'il allait devenir.

[tittiez]

HWIYOUNGS ENTIRE BACK IS COVERED IN TATTOOS

[dykeplants]

finally finished the miraculous ladybug movie I wish adrien got more songs lol

[postcard-from-the-past]

French socialist leader Jean Jaurès on a vintage postcard

[jessicacousin35]

#lectureachevée #ledernieramidejaurès #taniasollogoub 🕵️L’histoire : Fin juillet 1914,le peuple parisien ne veut pas la guerre et personne n’y croit vraiment. Ils n’ont pas le même âge mais partage cet amour de la France qui anime Jaurès. Avant le début de la guerre. Avant l’assassinat de Jaurès. 📝mon avis: Moi qui ne suis pas férue d’histoire, j’ai compris des choses: les rouages de la vie politique, le pouvoir, la soif de conflits armées… La lecture est très agréable, la plume fluide. On se prête à rêver d’un autre monde mais rien ne semble avoir changé depuis cette époque. En refermant ce roman, une question subsiste : et si on n’avait pas tué Jaurès ? Un roman qui romance sans travestir la réalité. Une belle découverte pour un jeune lectorat. Et vous? Connaissez-vous ce roman? Dites-moi tout! Ciao! #jaures #politique #guerremondiale #histoire #bookstagram #bookstagramfrance #instalivre #roman https://www.instagram.com/p/CoIsYx-KvxdsgiktYg6RyD6962978kdAbd43Ac0/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[worldhistoryfacts]

Mug shot of the appropriately named Raoul Villain, who murdered French antiwar politician Jean Jaures as World War I approached in 1914:

Read the rest of the story here:

[nesiacha]

When politics gets involved in history (French Revolution part)

As a general rule, when politicians meddle in history, it often creates confusion. Today I will talk about how they handle the French Revolution.

Of course, Jean Jaures did a good job on this period, although there are naturally points to criticize. But generally speaking, our politicians allow themselves to make crude or inappropriate remarks.

There are even serious historians who fall into the trap by making political amalgamations. A few days ago, while doing research, I came across an excerpt from an article by Thierry Lentz, a respected historian, made comments in Le Figaro comparing the left-wing opposition party, France Insoumise, to the Hébertists, labeling them as vulgar. My intention on this page is not to promote France Insoumise, but to qualify the Hébertists as vulgar (I imagine he also includes the Cordeliers and the Exagérés) is not good for me (the only thing that can be qualified as vulgar is the newspaper Le Père Duchesne and Hébert's style). Moreover, what does he mean by the left's reinterpretation of the Terror? He talks about Marxist-Leninist dogma in his terms, but Lenin preferred Danton, who was not a Hébertist. Plus the Bolshevik revolution was not based on the same principles as the French Revolution. The French Revolution has democratic aspects that the Bolsheviks did not apply (I'm not saying this to denigrate gratuitously the USSR, which became Russia, let's be clear). A country that has undergone a revolution compared to another country doesn’t necessarily adopt the same principles (often because there are different contexts, different paths, etc.). And reducing the Hébertists, Cordeliers, or Exagérés to the Terror is quite reductive (I have already expressed my thoughts on the Cordeliers in one of my posts).

Moreover, in left-wing parties, from what I have observed, it is rather the character of Babeuf that is taken up, considered as the father of communism (I once met a communist who saw Momoro as a reference and another who prefer Marat), while France Insoumise is something else (we can rather place Robespierre in the radical left, but I don't think he would have been a socialist, and we can be sure he was not a communist). So why once again Thierry Lentz associates France Insoumise with Trotskyism and Marxist-Leninism for taking up Robespierre? I mean, okay, there were communists who admired Robespierre like Stellio Lorenzi, but clearly not as many as one would think.

While Lentz's expertise in French history is widely respected, such political analogies raise questions about the neutrality of historical interpretation.

Moreover, it is interesting that the fact that "La Caméra explore le temps" rehabilitated the Montagnards led to the end of the program because of the Gaullist government. Once again, politics gets involved in history and leads to very bad results.

Now it's President Macron's turn. With Stéphane Bern, the president started to explain that an edict signed in 1539 by François I imposed French as the sole language in France. However, historian Mathilde Larrère says it was the French Revolution that imposed French as the sole language on the French. Once again, politics in history can lead to bad results.

I won't even talk about certain elements of the far right who claim to be followers of Robespierre because that would be giving them publicity, and it's not my vocation.

Now let's move on to Mélenchon from the France Insoumise party, who also made significant historical errors during this period. First, in one of Robespierre's videos, he calls Marie Antoinette a "spoiled brat." Accusing the former queen of treason I understand, she gave all the information she could to the enemy, but when you hear "spoiled brat," you're passing a value judgment that has nothing to do with it. Finally, he invents a marriage of Pauline Léon, saying that she ended her life in bourgeois fashion with a Girondin.

Moreover, Melenchon explain that the extreme left of the time was manipulated by the corrupt who arrested Robespierre. Okay, there were Billaud-Varennes and Collot d'Herbois in the mix, but you can't tell me that the Plaine was part of the extreme left. Moreover, most of the elements of what was called the extreme left were either in prison, like Claire Lacombe, Pauline Léon, Jean-François Varlet, or eliminated, like Chaumette, Momoro, Ronsin, and Hébert at the time of 9 Thermidor.

Moreover, contrary to what Mélenchon suggested, Chaumette and Hébert were not part of the Enragés movement.

In the end, this is the problem when our politicians try to shape history to fit their agendas. It leads to significant inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Anti-militarism

There are two obvious ways of taking direct action against war— a mutiny by those who fight, and a strike by those whose work supports those who fight. In fact a mutiny against war is scarcely feasible. Mutineers have usually been protesting against their standard of living rather than their way of life, against those who give them orders to kill rather than the orders themselves. Mutiny is after all a rebellion of armed men, and armed men don’t lay down their arms (see Serjeant Musgrave’s Dance). A soldier, said Swift, is “a yahoo hired to kill” and once he has let himself be hired (or conscripted) to kill it is hard for him to stop killing and become a man again— if he does, he immediately ceases to be a soldier, and his protest is no longer mutiny. Exsoldiers are often the most resolute pacifists, after they get out of uniform. “If my soldiers learnt to think,” said Frederick the Great, “not one would remain in the ranks.” But soldiers are very carefully taught not to think. And even if they did, mutiny would scarcely be the way out— how can violence be destroyed by violence?

A strike against war is more feasible, since the working classes aren’t already committed to war and they have a long tradition of strike action. But the hard fact is that the Left— socialist, communist and anarchist— has a pretty shocking war record. People who are quite prepared to lead workers into strike after strike for wages are not willing to strike against their rulers for peace, and most wartime strikes have been intended not to prevent war but to prevent rulers and employers from using war as an excuse to increase discipline or decrease wages. When a strike is clearly against war, it is almost always against that particular war, not against all war; and even when it is against all war, it is almost always against national war and not against civil war as well. But they are both war— a vertical war between social classes is just as much a war as a horizontal war between separate communities within a single society. War is only a name for organised mass violence. But left-wing disapproval of horizontal war is usually in direct proportion to approval of vertical war, and vice versa: while a diagonal war is easily disguised as a patriotic or class war, whichever is approved. The man who won’t fight the enemy abroad will fight the enemy at home, and the man who won’t fight the enemy at home will fight the enemy abroad In the event the Left will fight just as willingly as the Right, and as often as not they end by fighting on the same side. Most people oppose the use of violence in theory, but most people use violence ia practice, and no one who deliberately uses violence really opposes war. As Thomas k Kempis said, “All men desire peace, but very few desire those things which make for peace.”

The strongest left-wing opponents of war used to be the antimilitarists, who before 1914 were very close to (and often the same as) the anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists as well as the more libertarian socialists. Their proclaimed weapon was the general strike against war, but this turned out to be as much of a myth as the general strike described in George SoreFs Reflections on Violence (1906) — except that Sorel meant his to be mythical, while not only moderate leaders like Bebel, Jaures and Keir Hardie but even the really determined anti-militarists deceived themselves as well as their followers, and were genuinely surprised when the Labour Movement first let the Great War begin and then actually joined it. Only a few hard-headed realists like Gustav Landauer knew the true weakness of left-wing anti-militarism, and no one imagined that passionate anti-militarists like Herve” and Mussolini would themselves lead the Labour Movement into the war effort.

In fact anti-militarists have had very little anti-militarist influence on the official or unofficial Labour Movement, whatever other influence they had, and even that little influence melts away to nothing when the political temperature rises (consider Keir Hardie, George Lansbury and Aneurin Bevan in this country alone). For all their fine talk at international conferences in peacetime, most social democrats become social patriots when the blast of war blows in their ears, and even the brave few who refuse to take up oars with the rest also refuse to rock the boat. “The lads who have gone forth by sea and land to fight their country’s battles,” said Keir Hardie a few days after the Great War began, “must not be disheartened by any discordant note at home.” Among socialists, only the Marxists stood firm in 1870, and even Marx thought Bismarck was fighting a “defensive” war; only the extreme Marxists and some other extreme socialists stood firm again in 1914, and of course the Marxists began fighting ferociously four years later.

In 1939 only a few very extreme socialists still stood firm, while the Marxists made themselves thoroughly ridiculous.

The anarchist record is better, but many sincere comrades followed Kropotkin in 1914 and Rudolf Rocker in 1939. And even if all the anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists and anti-militarists had stood firm, war would still have come in 1914 and again in 1939. For militarism is stronger than anti-militarism, nationalism is stronger than internationalism, conformism is stronger than non-conformism— and never more so than in the middle of a war crisis. A general strike against war before the State has caught the war fever demands a revolutionary intention that seldom exists; a general strike against war after the State has succumbed demands a degree of revolutionary courage and determination that almost never exists. The Left is reluctant enough to challenge the State when all the circumstances are favourable— how much more so when the circumstances are completely unfavourable! Once the State is down with the fever, it is already too late to protest or demonstrate or threaten strike action, because the fever is so infectious that the people catch it before anyone quite realises what is happening; and by the time war actually breaks out it comes as a relief, like a rash following a high temperature. Then there is no chance of doing anything except in the case of defeat.

The problem is partly one of simple timing. Randolph Bourne, the American liberal pragmatist whose observation of the Great War drove him to anarchist pacifism, pointed out in his unfinished essay on the state [1] that “it is States which make war on each other, and not peoples,” but “the moment war is declared, the mass of the people, through some spiritual alchemy, become convinced that they have willed and executed the deed themselves;” with the result that “the slack is taken up, the cross-currents fade out, the nation moves lumberingly and slowly, but with ever-accelerated speed and integration, towards the great end,” towards “that peacefulness of being at war” (a phrase he took from L. P. Jacks, the English Unitarian writer). Although Bourne didn’t belong to the Labour Movement, he had far more insight into the nature of war and its relationship with society and the State than most anti-militarists who did. “War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate co-operation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.” For war isn’t only against foreigners. “The pursuit of enemies within outweighs in psychic attractiveness the assault on the enemy without. The whole terrific force of the State is brought to bear against the heretics.” Of course, “the ideal of perfect loyalty, perfect uniformity, is never really attained,” but “the nation in wartime attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war ... A people at war have become in the most literal sense obedient, respectful, trustful children again.” Nor, alas, are the working classes immune to “this regression to infantile attitudes,” so “into the military enterprise they go, not with those hurrahs of the significant classes whose instincts war so powerfully feeds, but with the same apathy with which they enter and continue in the industrial enterprise.” People whose highest ambition is to capture the State for themselves can’t be expected to destroy it.

[des-jours-et-des-nuits]

Jean Jaurès Covid 2020

roches noires

[marchofthefallsettos]

i jaur started watching that was then this is now and the first song was a oingo boing song.. i love oingo boingo so much