Long Live the Revolution?
July 14 is the day the French people celebrate the storming of the Bastille. This led to the dethroning and beheading of King Louis XVI and the establishment of the first French Republic, which promised “liberty, equality, and fraternity.”
The rest of the story doesn’t go so well. Out of the French Revolution came the Reign of Terror, which saw 16,000-40,000 people guillotined. Within fifteen years, the Republic gave way to the French Empire and the Napoleonic Wars and its millions of deaths.
France is hardly alone in the list of nations with revolutions that failed to live up to their promise. The Bolsheviks in Russia, Chairman Mao in China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia rose to power through revolution with great promises of equality and a better world and managed to bring mass murder instead.
American movies romanticize and celebrate revolutionaries, both the fictional and real ones. Whether it’s Luke Skywalker challenging the empire, or Rambo fighting on the side of the Taliban-like rebels in Rambo III, a revolutionary cause is always considered righteous.
Not only does American popular culture celebrate revolutionaries, we cite our history as proof revolutions are good. But such naïveté is as dangerous as it was in the 18th century. Thomas Paine went to France in support of the French Revolution and found himself imprisoned by the revolutionaries he’d come to help.
The truth is that revolutions rarely result in liberty. They often lead to a new tyranny — often, even worse than the old tyranny. The flaws in czarist Russia and nationalist China paled in comparison to the horrors of the governments that followed. In these revolutions and many more, ordinary people supported revolution for the improvement of their lives and their country. In the end, they wound up used by opportunistic men who aggrandized themselves and imposed their own radical ideas that led to less liberty and prosperity.
For American political leadership, Bastille Day should be a reminder of the need for caution. It is popular to present people with a false choice between isolationism and intervening everywhere in the world. “Regime change” is often bandied about with little thought as to what the new regime will look like or what the consequences will be. Before we try to change another regime, we should be careful to know what we’re changing the regime to and what horrors we may unleash.
The French Revolution was a highly complex event…toss in refusal of Newly Formed United States to pay massive loans and debts back to France incurred to win the Revolutionary war (The USA defaulted its debts to France and instead signed huge trade agreements with England immediately after US revolution) contributed mightily to topple the failing French economy, and fueled fires of revolution.
This is an interesting comparison to today’s global economic situation ; massive debts owed by dozens of Nations may Default, and cause the same domino effect across nations…will certainly be fascinating to watch History unfold.
France’s public debt had been in disarray well before the birth of the USA. Revolution was about nobles being exempted of taxes, about people lerning that millions were being given to court nobles in dowry when they married, about Louis XVI not seeing that Versailles was no longer useful (Louis XIV built it in order to make the nobility ruin itself at the court and no longer being able to revolt like when he was a child), about Louis XVI reverting the centuries old policy of using bourgeoisie against the nobility. last but not least about the new regulations who required to have four noble gran-parents in order to become an officer (meaning that most of Louis XIV’s best generals wouldn’t been able to become lieutenants) and, for commoners already in the army, severely curtiled their careers and barred them from becoming generals: many of Revolutions’s and Napoleon’s best generals were issued from the ranks of these disgruntled officers. In fact, a turning point in the road who led Louis XVI to the guillotine was when a mob invaded his palace at the Tuileries. Between the troop in the vicinity of the palace there was an artillery officer who said he had been strongly tempted to open fire with grapeshot but finally decided against it. His name was Bonaparte.
All of which entirely misses the point of the article.
An excellent book that should be on every shelf is Nesta (NOT Noah) Webster’s “The French Revolution”. Based on eye witness accounts, it shows that the main victims of Madame la Guillotine were the plebeians, not the nobles. Which makes sense, since it was all engineered by a nobleman, Philippe D’Orleans, the traitor cousin of the King.
Strange you didn’t mention the Iranian “revolution” which got rid of the Sha and put in a theocracy which promised all the good things of life and today is one of the most dangerous states around threatening everybody and terrorizing its citizens.
“France is hardly alone in the list of nations with revolutions that failed to live up to their promise.”
Ah yes, remember all that “Hope and Change” in 2008? Remember how this man/boy we have in the White House sold the American public that he was a “uniter, not a divider” and that he was a “centrist” and was going to be the president of not just the “Red States” or the “Blue States” but of the United States? Remember all of that? And what do we have today? A country that is not only more divided than ever, but a country that is also at the brink of financial collapse as well as involved in three, yes count them three, wars. The moment people start giving you slogans instead of showing you what they’ve actually accomplished in their lives is the time to run away. Fast. The only thing that is missing between Obama and what happened after the French Revolution got started is the guillotine. And to a Socialist like Obama, I’m sure he’s just plain heartbroken that he couldn’t use it on those nasty “rich” people he seems to hate so much. This guy has really got to go in 2012.
In fact the French revolution closely matches Orwell’s analyisis in 1964: the middle class uses the lower class to assault power, then part of the old middle class becomes the new upper class and the lower class gets no benefit at all.
In the French Revolution the lands of the nobility and the church were sold in a such way only the bourgeoisie could buy them than it was allowed to pay in “assignats” that is bank notes whose value dropped precipituously so they hand the mands basically for free. The revolution also made made that the only the rich had right to vote: because “the populace has not enough instruction” all while it closed the free schols who existed under the monarchy “because instruction was bad for the poor”. This is one of the reasons, France, unlike the United States in early XIXth century where governors, private individuals and protestant churches, developped a network of free elementary schools, didn’t develop a class of entrepeneurs issued from the working class and the lacks of perspectives within the system certainly played a role for the French working class turning towards socialism
The “storming of the Bastille” actually smacked more of farce than heroism.
The Bastille (which no longer exists) was a fortress in the center of Paris roughly the size of the Tower of London. While in Louis XIV’s time it had been used as a military command post, by 1789 it was mainly used as, not the horrid political prison portrayed in literature, but a powder store. The revolutionaries’ objective in taking it was to seize the gunpowder and whatever weapons were stored there, not to free “political prisoners”.
As for the “storming”, the mob sat outside the gate for two days, at which point the colonel in charge, concluding that his messages calling for reinforcements either weren’t getting through or just would not result in any response from his chain of command, opened the gates and surrendered the fortress. The revolutionaries didn’t “storm” the Bastille- they walked in, under a flag of truce. (Interestingly, it was about the only one they respected throughout the Revolution, i.e., they didn’t massacre the surrendered force as would be their later custom.)
Please note that at no point during the “siege” was a shot fired by either side. The revolutionaries had no arms- the Bastille was targeted to obtain them, as explained above. And the garrison held their fire because firing on civilians was prohibited by the express orders of the King, who didn’t want to make a bad situation worse. (As the old saying goes, challenging “worse” never ends well.)
As for “political prisoners” freed by the “storming”, the revolutionaries went to the “dungeon”, which was actually on the second floor, not in the basement, and freed… two pickpockets and a burglar. (Some sources state the latter was also a horse thief.) All three of whom were locked up in the Bastille because the local police court used it as a holding tank for petty criminals awaiting trial, which all three of these yutzes were at the time.
Hardly the stuff of stirring legend. Which probably explains its over-romanticization in later years (like the picture at top). Myself, I’d say it would have been better material for an Abbott & Costello movie.
(And yes, I have seen Mel Brooks’ “Start The Revolution Without Me” with Donald Sutherland and Gene Wilder. Great movie.)
cheers
eon
I nominate eon’s article as the most informative and entertaining post of the thread (?)
Thanks, but I made one little goof- it was Bud Yorkin and Norman Lear who made “Start The Revolution Without Me”, not Mel Brooks. (Brain F**t.) But Sutherland & Wilder did star in it, along with Jack MacGowran, Billie Whitelaw, and (as narrator) Orson Welles. Very funny film, almost on a par with Danny Kaye’s “The Court Jester”.
cheers
eon
Actually I would tell that eon could apply for a job in the New York Times.
1) It is not true thet the Bastille had been under siege for two days. The mob gathered on 14th July.
2) The insurgents_had_ weapons: they had sacked an army depot. I doubt they had a gun per person I think they even had cannon.
3) It is true that the governor ordered not to fire and opened the doors but it is false that things went pacifically: he, along some officers was beheaded and hs head put on a pike
4) It is true that there were no political prisoners at the Bastille but theyy were six of them (this is from memory) and eon got wrong about their nature. The people in Bastille had been jailed after a “lettre de cachet”. While in previous decades they were used quite arbitrarily in Louis XVI times they were used for dissolute sons whose fathers had asked them to soand a time in jail before they got into major trouble and as way to try to put them in the right track. Because the lettre de cachet had to be signed by the king himself their use was very limited and, in Lous XVI times it involved a thorough investigation of the case (Notice that Napoleon revived it, except that it was more extended, it was the French equivalent to the DA who took the decision and that it was only abolished in 1935 ie 65 years into the Third Republic…). So by the time the Bastilmle was stormed there were 6 inmates in it: young, dissolute men. One of them was a companion of the marquis de Sade
While I don’t disagree with this, actually, we’d do better to remember a basic principle: The sovereignty of nations.
We simply have no business changing regimes in other countries. We have no legal or moral authority to do so.
The revolution in France originated in fundamental Economic causes; half of all spending was Interest on the Public Debt (The USA is approaching that tipping point, other nations have already passed it).
The nobility, the military all the other causes were minor in comparison and contributed, but would never have been enough had France not been funding foreign wars for the past several decades and placed itself into severe debt obligations to its Lenders. ( as the US has been doing since the 60′s). This single issue overwhelmed all others in scope and effect.
Its pretty basic; no Country’s banking system and or its sovereignty has ever recovered when debt exceeds half its tax receipts. The USA has has two complete National banking failures in its history, we are about to see a Third.
National failures will always occur when a country funds wars that do not provide profit or return, one of Sun Tzu one of the main themes in his treatise, The Art of War.
It will be fascinating to watch the rise and fall of empires in our lifetime.
Underscoring Mr. Graham’s thesis, one might also consider the Cuban Revolution. Powerfully romanticized by the gullible and corrupt simpleton, NYT’s Herbert Matthews, CBS’s Robert Taber and sympathetic photo spreads by Life Magazine, much of America came to believe in the nobility of Castro’s cause. That all worked out nicely, didn’t it?
Conservative Revolutions — Good! (1688; 1776; 1865). Radical Revolutions — Bad! (All the rest). (And Hey, Check out my book).
“Conservative Revolutions — Good! (1688; 1776; 1865)”
There are many more: the overthrow of the Athenian and Roman monarchies; the Lombard League; the Swiss Confederation; the battle of the Golden Spurs; the Barons’ Revolt; the Dutch Revolution; and various other events after 1776.
“(And Hey, Check out my book)”
I did; I much prefer Tocqueville’s L’Ancien Regime et la Revolution.
I got more from any one chapter of that, than I got from the Reflections (in as far as I could force myself to read them).
The American Revolution was not a revolution like that in France or those afterwards. It was a war of independence against Great Britain, and self-government continued – without the British crown – in all the colonies. The Continental Congress was the sponsor of this revolution.
Question: what was the role of then President Jimmy Carter in the removal of the Shah of Iran? Did he orchestrate it in order to get even with the Shah for not having agreed to an illegal deal of Carter’s brother?
“Liberty, equality, fraternity.”
Pick one. You can have either liberty or equality, never both. Equality can only be imposed by coercion.
First of all Equality meant “equality in rights” and it is the opposite: you can’t have liberty when there is no equality _in rights and the powerful can steal, rape and kill with impuniry.
The POTUS whether Dem, Repub or Independent, must now form up a tripartate initiative among business, industry and gov’t, for the single purpose of driving up jobs with livable wages. There is no return to prosperity for America without serious job creation — and that would mean recalling jobs that have been offshored for at least two decades.
The Tea Partiers as second time “revolutionaries” should focus on that as a priority to maintain relevance in continuing to be effective.
Unless the Repub candidates/independents identify business/industry entities and solicit intended job creation plans which include job descript classifications with wage brackets/scales, the impasse continues to economic destruction.
Revolutions occur when the masses are facing homelessness, starvation.
Dick Morris, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Mitt Romney (the leading candidate for 2012, are stomping the rhetoric only like Obama and are offering no viable message to business, et. al. to restart the hiring.
Robert Reich is pointing to the need for the initiatives, while Jesse Ventura’s recent book outlines where the stimulus monies have been sinkholed.
The complexity of small business impediments vs. mega conglomerattes has to be looked at.
Willing of enterprises to fork out viable paycheques is the crux of the problem. Their profit margins will grow when middle classes have paychques to generate revenue and spending.
“NO TICKIE, NO LAUNDRY” which even Chinese leadership is recognizing as the growing problem.
North America turning into a “banana republic” bankrupt now, can be reversed with a start up economy as in kibbutzim community first business/agricultural begin again all over again, as Israel did after 1948. The politicians are waving their papers from their briefcases and are intentionally clueless.
That’s happening from all ideological bases.
Hope Donald Trump runs and wins for he’ll drive hard bargains to get the jobs back.
He’s “the man” to be recognized.
Today we have a generation who grew up in a post-Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot world. Most have never heard of them or witnessed the propaganda and demagogy that brought them to power and the massacres that followed. This ignorant generation is eligible to vote and even qualifies for a seat in parliament. They will be seduced by the same rhetoric and phoney political romanticism that had seduced the supporters of the afore-mentioned revolutions. This is why history WILL repeat itself. Twenty years after the total collapse of the Soviet Union and the Chinese abandonment of their Marxist economic model people start again expecting salvation in Marxism/Leninism and elect people like Chavez all over South America. Like the big, failed experiment with socialism that killed millions never happened. Yes, one could learn from history, but where are the teachers?
Here’s the deal. France is the Land of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the monarchy of France is divinely appointed and of a Davidic line. France will soon erupt into a brutal civil war, revolution, or civil unrest if you will. Paris will be a slaughterhouse and will be burned to the ground mostly. This is then the start of the counter revolution and the return of France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Holy Kingdom, torn apart by violence and despair will finally agree to allow the Pope to mediate the unsolvable crisis. The pope will appoint a new monarch for France. He is the savior of France, the Great Catholic Monarch, descendent of the Louis IX, the next Holy Roman Emperor Henri V de la Croix.
Don’t believe me? Think I’m nuts? That’s fine by me, it’s not my imagination that came up with this but rather the prophecy of hundreds of Catholic saints from all over the world.
How insane is this: (after the Iran experience)?
Istanbul (CNN) — The United States now recognizes the main opposition group in Libya “as the legitimate governing authority” in a country that Moammar Gadhafi has long ruled with an iron first, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday, July 15, 2011
I agree withe Lady Margaret Thatcher, who said, famously, that the only thing the French Revolution accomplished was the creation of a mountain of bodies.
Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed! Very helpful information particularly the remaining part
I maintain such info much. I was looking for this particular information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.