The revolution in France has by many been seen as a true victory for liberalism, and maybe that's correct, but did the revolution really help France and its people? Could it all have been done in a different manner?
As the true Edmund Burke fan I am, I would like to introduce a bit of a high-level intellectual debate regarding the revolution in France. To summarize all of it, the people of France committed a revolution which changed the whole French society from the roots. The reasons for the revolution are debatable; the most mentioned, possible reasons are the poverty and the starvation in France (which were very much connected to the economic miseries) and the spreading of liberal ideas opposing the royalties in France. The consequences from the revolution have been blessed by classic liberals as "the liberal revolution" while classic conservatives fiercely opposed it (Edmund Burke in Reflection on the Revolution in France) for ruining all stability in France.
The conservative arguments have many pros since the new weak republic in France was able to be turned over by Napoleon to despotism. Napoleon started several wars which caused many lost lives both in France and in the rest of the world. Basically, the French revolution led to a even worse society in the long run than the one that it was revolting against. Quick and revolutionary change is often resulting in destructiveness. Gradual change is the key to long lasting stability. "The cure must be better than the disease." At least that's my conclusion.
I kept it pretty short so that we can focus more on medium long replies within the debate.
So what's your stance on the revolution in France?
I think it went a bit over the top when they started beheading people on a mass scale (especially considering a lot of the French didn't want to kill the monarch, just reduce their power), however for the most part it seems to have been positive.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33477482]I think it went a bit over the top when they started beheading people on a mass scale (especially considering a lot of the French didn't want to kill the monarch, just reduce their power), [B]however for the most part it seems to have been positive[/B].[/QUOTE]
Could you develop why it would be positive a bit? I personally regard the revolution in the basic sense that it changed the society too fast to something unstable.
"A country after a revolution is like a newly born baby; at its most vulnerable time in life."
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;33477512]Could you develop why it would be positive a bit? I personally regard the revolution in the basic sense that it changed the society too fast to something unstable.
"A country after a revolution is like a newly born baby; at its most vulnerable time in life."[/QUOTE]
Egypt seems to prove that last bit right now.
Following the French Revolution was the Reign of Terror. The French Republic was out of control and it started to confiscate land from the nobility and the members of the Church. They also imposed very radical changes to the fundamental aspects of every day society trying to 'antiquidate' the French people. They imposed a French Revolutionary Calendar and started to denounce Christianity. The famine continued and millions of French peasants starved to death despite getting rid of the bourgeois.
The French Republic was also ripe for anyone to sink their teeth into. Napoleon Bonaparte took this to his advantage and started a war in Europe.
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;33477512]Could you develop why it would be positive a bit? I personally regard the revolution in the basic sense that it changed the society too fast to something unstable.
"A country after a revolution is like a newly born baby; at its most vulnerable time in life."[/QUOTE]
Because it established more entrenched rights for the people, and also introduced a democratic government in the end.
Positive. The french revolution pretty much kicked off the grave-digging for feudalism and monarchy, in all of europe.
[quote]The famine continued and millions of French peasants starved to death despite getting rid of the bourgeois.[/quote]
...they got rid of the landed aristocracy, and by they I mean it was the bourgeoisie.
The French Revolution is an immensely difficult event to either categorize as "good' or "bad".
On one hand The Directory and later Napoleon would be the first real leaders to carve a national identity on authority other than the ancient and oppressive Divine Right of Kings, and it paved the way for the modern Nation-State, a model later followed by Germany and Italy.
On the other hand however, Napoleon served his own purposes aggressively, and though his intentions and actions were often for the bettering of his people he became caught in a war that spiraled out of control. His only means of keeping authority was to pick up the mantle of Emperor that he had worked so hard to cut from the Kings before him. In time he grew to fit the part too well and we all know what resulted from that.
I'd say The French Revolution was like most violent political movements doomed to spawn nothing more than another regime based on authority and nationalism.
[QUOTE=Conscript;33478233]Positive. The french revolution pretty much kicked off the grave-digging for feudalism and monarchy, in all of europe.
...they got rid of the landed aristocracy, and by they I mean it was the bourgeoisie.[/QUOTE]
petty bourgeois*
You can go down that road too I guess...but I think it's just sugar-coating for 'peasantry' :)
The french revolution was an amazing thing to happen if only for the sole reason of it starting constitutionalist movements all over Europe. It was essentially a kickstarter which forced absolute monarchs to realise they will have to depress their grips a small bit at least.
It also paved the way to Napoleon and essentially the modern european legal system.
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;33477512]Could you develop why it would be positive a bit? I personally regard the revolution in the basic sense that it changed the society too fast to something unstable.
"A country after a revolution is like a newly born baby; at its most vulnerable time in life."[/QUOTE]
It actually depends on the leading part of the revolution. You want the middle class to be in the forefront of it, as these are by far the most moderate of the possible parties. Essentially one of the reasons why the post revolution period in the US*was fairly decent. The leaders were the upper and normal middle class.
The post war period in the french revolution was a tougher, as you had a far greater group of the population in leadership, including extremely militant, usually poorer factions. Which more or less gave us Robespierre terror rule in the end.
Another problematic issue were the soviet revolutions which catapulted the impoverished into leadership as well. A military junta is another factor again. But tends to work fairly well in the latin americas where the military has quite a lot of respect.
Would probably work in the US*as well, once more due to a certain national pride into the military.
as in.. the french revolution? that was the foundation for all of modern politics. i don't think its possible to say it was bad...
The French Revolution was a violent regime change in the name of an abstract ideal. Bad.
Yes...private property. Soooo abstract.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33480109]The French Revolution was a violent regime change in the name of an abstract ideal. Bad.[/QUOTE]
it was more than that. there was violence, yes, but any successful revolution needs violence. but it was also a major political reform in france. it wasn't an abstract idea. it was years of debate and warring in an attempt to figure out the best form of rule.
[editline]28th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;33478587]petty bourgeois*[/QUOTE]
or we could not use terms which were not at all associated with the french revolution. i wasn't aware we were discussing 18th century scientific socialism
The term bourgeoisie was not invented by socialists, they existed as a class long before marx. They and the peasantry, who are the textbook definition of petty-bourgeois/small capitalist, were very involved in the french revolution and it shows in its guiding ideals.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie[/url]
[QUOTE=Conscript;33483400]The term bourgeoisie was not invented by socialists, they existed as a class long before marx. They and the peasantry, who are the textbook definition of petty-bourgeois/small capitalist, were very involved in the french revolution and it shows in its guiding ideals.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie[/URL][/QUOTE]
i guess we're using it in separate terms. just a clash of terminology. my bad.
Don't feel sorry, 'bourgeoisie' is basically synonymous with ruling elite. It's hard not to forget today's rulers used to be oppressed themselves. I'd be surprised if someone didn't raise the issue, come to think of it.
nah, it's just that my knowledge of the french revolution is from a political outlook. i don't know of it in explicit detaill. i've known that the word bourgeoisie was of french origin, but i never looked into it. it's my own self-prescribed ignorance of the term.
In my opinion, the french revolution was a necessary evil. The people of the french were in famine, mass beheadings, and massive culture changes. But it changed society in and out of itself for the better in the long run.
[QUOTE=DanRatherman;33478428]
I'd say The French Revolution was like most violent political movements doomed to spawn nothing more than another regime based on authority and nationalism.[/QUOTE]
from somebody not french who studies history (and art mostly though) in France:
the revolution itself wasn't violent, there were barely any fights, don't get fooled by the glorious imagery people give it. it was a movement of an intellectual elite that the majority decided to follow, what came after the actual revolution and first free government was awful and really bloody but people don't consider part of the revolution
the actual revolution was approved by most people, there were some fight in paris, some nobles died all over the country because they were practically alone (even their guards were turning up against them)
I wouldn't say it made no death but most revolutions in Europe and American's Independence war made much more casualties
the thing is that until napoleon they never had a strong regime and changed all the time so the real point where that "revolution" is over is hard to set
some people include robespierre's murders in the French revolution some don't, some even say it took them 40 years
the sure thing is that it changed the face of Europe, but lets not forget the philosophers who initiated this movement of liberty were inspired by the british system
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;33477859]The famine continued and millions of French peasants starved to death despite getting rid of the bourgeois.[/QUOTE]
wha
They were the bourgeoisie
How do you think marxism and its extremely critical view of the bourgeoisie developed?
[editline]29th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Conscript;33483477]Don't feel sorry, 'bourgeoisie' is basically synonymous with ruling elite. It's hard not to forget today's rulers used to be oppressed themselves. I'd be surprised if someone didn't raise the issue, come to think of it.[/QUOTE]
yup
Hard to think of a revolution that involved the killing of ludicrous amounts of people (a lot of peasants) and cycled through half a dozen forms of government in rapid succession before becoming an empire "positive".
Well, I believe most of us regard democracy and civil rights as something positive, but what I'm saying is that another development in France than the revolution would have benefited the society as a whole more. A more organic development based on gradual and stable change would possibly have led France towards something similar to the more democratic monarchy of Great Britain.
[QUOTE=RonPaul4ever;33489043]Well, I believe most of us regard democracy and civil rights as something positive, but what I'm saying is that another development in France than the revolution would have benefited the society as a whole more. A more organic development based on gradual and stable change would possibly have led France towards something similar to the more democratic monarchy of Great Britain.[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that Napoleon's France was indeed an empire, but one with a massive focus on human rights.
Another thing to keep in mind - the UK didn't have a king in the same position as France, and some other European countries. The English king was a lot more limited due to earlier developements. So the gradual change in France would probably not have happened.
Continental Europe on average was very absolutistic, but in France, this problem was compounded by the king being able to retain all lands of a house that died out. In most other countries he was forced to grant them out in under a year or so.
This essentially allowed the king to strenghten his position and create a fairly loyal, lower noble army of accountants, deputies and who knows what else, by assigning them to small patches of land.
The position was so strong, that the French king was really the only one that could say and mean it - I AM THE STATE.
In that regard the french revolution was absolutely vital for most of continental Europe. And gave most other nations the tools for a more organic change.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;33489727]Keep in mind that Napoleon's France was indeed an empire, but one with a massive focus on human rights.
Another thing to keep in mind - the UK didn't have a king in the same position as France, and some other European countries. The English king was a lot more limited due to earlier developements. So the gradual change in France would probably not have happened.
Continental Europe on average was very absolutistic, but in France, this problem was compounded by the king being able to retain all lands of a house that died out. In most other countries he was forced to grant them out in under a year or so.
This essentially allowed the king to strenghten his position and create a fairly loyal, lower noble army of accountants, deputies and who knows what else, by assigning them to small patches of land.
The position was so strong, that the French king was really the only one that could say and mean it - I AM THE STATE.
In that regard the french revolution was absolutely vital for most of continental Europe. And gave most other nations the tools for a more organic change.[/QUOTE]
My point was pretty much that the King in UK was a lot more limited. I believe that with a people that demanded change towards something similar in France, gradual change in France could indeed lead towards the same kind of monarchy in France as in UK.
Except the difference is, that the movement in the UK began a couple of centuries earlier. Just consider the Magna Carta.
From an historical perspective, the revolution in France was terrible because they destroyed much of the records held by the ancien regime. It's not that we know nothing of what happened before the revolution (duh), it's just that most of what we COULD know is now lost because of what was destroyed.
It's important to remember that the revolution in the United States was a lot more like a reform in practice, since it didn't really change the society from the roots. It only broke lose from UKs grip.
Edmund Burke did actually support the revolution in the United States, while he as said opposed the one in France.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the Russian Revolution did result in something similar to the France Revolution. It also resolted in something dreadful like the long term spread of despotic communism throughout the world
Except the russian and french revolutions were completely different in their end results. The french revolution was essentially perpetrated by the middle class and as a result was fairly stable.
As to communism in Europe. You have to remember that it was a number of factors that actually influenced European communism, and in a lot of cases this was done without a revolution or a coup. (We're talking post ww2 europe here, not the original communist revolution)
And it's also good to note, that the communist coup in Prague essentially stopped almost all communist support in the rest of western europe, helped kickstarted the Marshall plan and a slew of other things.
Or perhaps are you against the revolutions which took Europe in 89? Because they were too fast and sudden?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.