The French Revolution

[Hate Is Art]

Whats everyone's opinion on what the first "socialist" revolution?

[Kurai Tsuki]

Marx distinguishes between the Frech Revolution and a communist one in the Communist Manifesto. He says that the object of communism is to removed bourgeous property, while the French Revolution removed feudal property in favour of bourgeous property.

[Hate Is Art]

I know it wasn't a true socialist uprising, but these were the early revolutionarys and people like Rosseau and Desmollins made some very good speeches and writing on the subject of revolution and property.

[Vincent]

the french revolution was a bourgeois revolution, as the bourgeoisie were its main beneficiaries and provided all the leaders after 1791.

many reforms of the constituent assembly were supposed to apply to all citizens equally but only the bourgeoisie could take full advantage of them. workers and peasants benfitted little when careers became open to talent, as they were not educated.

when the biens were put up for sale they were sold in large lots and this too benefitted the middle classes, who owned between 30 and 40 per cent of french land by 1799. the voting system also favoured the bourgeoisie, as it was limited to property owners.

consequentially, nearly all the members of the various assemblys were bourgeois, as were all the ministers. the bourgeois had always filled the lower and middle ranks of the judiciary and the administration, but with the revolutions they also took over the highest posts, which previously had all been held by nobles.

although they had some pretty good ideas, forget rosseau and desmolins for socialist ideas... have a look at a guy named Gracchus Babeuf. He hated the constitution at the time because it gave power to the wealthy. he believed the aim of society should be 'the common happiness', and that the revolution should secure the equal enjoyment of lifes blessings for all. he thought that as private property produces inequality, the only way to establish real equality was 'to establish communal managment of property and abolish private possesion'. many historians calls Babeuf the first communist. he came up with a plan to overthrow the Directory (all this was in 1796, when the Directory was in power) and establish a dicatorship in order to make fundamental changes in the organisation of society. his plan was revelaed by a fellow conspiritor and the directory had him executed a year later. Babeuf's role in the french revolution was slight, but his theories were very important. some marxist historians say that his theories passed through some like minded people and eventually influenced lenins ideas.

[Hate Is Art]

I'll look into this Babeuf guy, if you have any links would be appreciated.

The French Revolution was on the principles of removing the monarchy (a worthy cause) and sure it all got a bit muddled when the bourgoeis took control and set up the new govt. after the aristocrats got the chop.

But it did set up a semblence of a democracy and did aim to make life better for most people, admitidly it is hard to find some kind of Socialist grain running through the revolutionarys but their intentions were honorable.

[percept¡on]

Rousseau died in 1778; he wasn't a contemporary of the revolution and probably wouldn't have been happy with the outcome of it.

I wouldn't call it a socialist revolution, but it wasn't exactly a bourgeois revolution either; but it was the first modern revolution and there are a lot of lessons we can take from it.

"Liberty, equality, and fraternity" is not a bad slogan thought.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The French Revolution was of course a bourgeouis revolution, it paved the way for Emperor Napoleon, a man of low birth, and he nearly conquered Europe.
The French Revolution greatly weakened the aristocracy and was therefore a good thing.
One striking feature of the FR was it's extreme hostility to the Church, Napoleon himself certainly despised priests.

The FR proved you did not have to be high-born or holy to rule.

[Hate Is Art]

it also gave rise to the new French National Anthem, what a fucking great one as well, the best there is!

[Vincent]

i don't have any links that relate to Babeuf, all i know about him is what I learnt earlier this year from the textbooks i have for history at school.

yes its true that their were some great revolutionary ideas, leadres and movments, and many had great intentions, but i would say one of the most important revolutionaries in the revolution was Robespierre. he had some great ideas, but power got to him and he ended up decapitating hundreds of thousands of people during 'the Terror', why? because they were not of virtue, and were enemies of the republic. he was bourgeois, and look who came out on top at the end? (before the rise of napoleon)

i have to disagree that the french revolution was a socialist one. its true that the french people were tired of the feudal society, and wanted to remove the notion of privileged classes of society (classes in France were very distinguishable and acknowledged by all society to be the first estate, who were the clergy, the second, who were the nobles, and the third, who were the bourgeois and the peasants.).

the third estate wanted so much to remove feudalism. it was the bourgeois who were in a prime position to do this because they were the most privelaged of the third estate, but they were still oppressed by the higher estates. they had to power. the bourgeois evtually got rid of feudalism, and replaced it many times by all sorts of regimes that only gave the impression of a better state. the french revolution was a bourgeois struggle against the aristocrats, clergy and feudalism. it made a state where the bourgois were in control. i guess it paved the way for capitalism.

and then napoleon came along.

[Mr. Krinklebein]

This is one of my areas of specialty. It was horrid; just an excuse for the French bourgeois to come to power! The 'people' of France actually had very little say in what was happening. I don't understand how people can find so much 'inspiration' in the FR. Inspiration in what? 'Revolutionary ideals and 'the people of a nation' being prostituted by greedy plutocrats?

He can robes his own pierre, as far as I'm concerned!

[timbaly]

Originally posted by Mr. [email protected] 25 2004, 04:21 AM
This is one of my areas of specialty. It was horrid; just an excuse for the French bourgeois to come to power! The 'people' of France actually had very little say in what was happening. I don't understand how people can find so much 'inspiration' in the FR. Inspiration in what? 'Revolutionary ideals and 'the people of a nation' being prostituted by greedy plutocrats?


I think it's quite clear as to why many people are inspired by the events that transpired during the French Revolution. The French Aristocracy and Monarchy were destroyed, this is progressive and because of it feudalism was eventually replaced by capitalism. Limited democratic ideals came out of the revolution as well, more people had say in the government than previously was the case. The revolution also inspired other revolutions in South America against colonial oppression by Spain. It also helped create a new wave of nationalistic feeling and made other groups of people feel even more so bound to each other, especially in the areas Napoleon conquered. The feelings of nationalism eventually helped to cause the collapse of Austria's empire since the different nationalities wanted sovereignty. So even though many leftists see nationalism as counter productive, it can be positive when it helps cause collapse of an empire.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

The French Revolution was important for one reason, it showed revolution was possible.

It also gave rise to humanism which I respect, also religious authority was quashed in favour of a kind of communal supreme being thing which is quite radical historical context wise.

[Mr. Krinklebein]

The French Revolution was important for one reason, it showed revolution was possible.
To many people it showed that revolution was possible, but terrible. The American Revolution (which came before the FR) serves as a much finer early example.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 20 2004, 06:33 PM
Whats everyone's opinion on what the first "socialist" revolution?
It was not a socialist revolution, and it was never claimed to be.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by Mr. [email protected] 26 2004, 09:22 PM
To many people it showed that revolution was possible, but terrible. The American Revolution (which came before the FR) serves as a much finer early example.
The American Revolution was a war for independence, it was not a social revolution.

The French Revolution was the first modern revolution; in fact, it was probably the first 'revolution' in history, in the modern sense of the word.

The FR had every monarch in Europe shaking in fear.

[Cheung Mo]

The American Revolution was an act slave-owning pseudo-libertarians who were pissed off about paying taxes.

Some good things came out of it though...Like...uh...An officially secular state and sane copyright laws (that became insane by the end of the 1920s, sadly).

[Horatii]

The French Revolution was the first modern revolution; in fact, it was probably the first 'revolution' in history, in the modern sense of the word.

If the French "Revolution" is an epitome of modern revolution, I want no part of it.

[Scars]

The French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, yes, but sections of it were definately Socialists and some were even Communists (non-Marxist though), most notably Babeuf, who has already been mentioned. In addition, the 1793 constitution that was never brought into force is a fairly good constitution in my opinion and could easily be used, with some modifications of course.

In addition the French Revolution siginals the start of modern socialism. Yes, there had been Communists and communist ideas prior to the French Revolution (The Diggers, for instance) but only after the French Revolution can you trace a constant evolution in theory, practice and so on.

As fr Rousseau, he died long before the beginning of the French Revolution, although the Social Contract did become almost the 'handbook' of many French Revolutionaries, particularly the Jacobins. However it was bastardised and many of the key ideas put forward in the Social Contract were ignored.

The Great Terror has to be mentioned. I find it hard not to defend it. Was it extreme? Yes. But revolutions are not peaceful or calm things. I cannot shed tears about the deaths of the French Aristocracy.

[chimx]

it wasn't just the aristocracy that was killed.

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:29 AM
it wasn't just the aristocracy that was killed.
No, of course not, however most of them were either members of the aristocracy or supporters/sympathisers (Monarchists and the like).

Books that give an overview of the French Revolution generally flip flop on this issue. At the start they generally give a description of the French Monarchy and its working, basically explaining just how decadent, excessive, corrupt and apathetic the regime was and how they, essentially, brough the revolution on themselves due to their own actions. Had they addressed the peoples concerns and not insisted on mainting autocratic rule France could have turned out like modern day England- a constitutional Monarchy. Anyway, then there's the revolution and then yuo get to teh Great Terror and suddenly the monsters of the first couple of chapters are poor, poor, innocent wuzzles who are being persecuted by the EVIL EVIL Robespierre and his brutal, sadistic, goatfucker friends!

[chimx]

so what are you trying to tell me... you condone goat fucking?

sure the terror was used at first to attack the old defenders of the monarchy, but the law of suspects that established the tribuals was defined pretty much under ambiguous "couter revolutionary" terms and was certainly far from just in many cases.

[Rawthentic]

yeah, the French Revolution that allowed France to advance to capitalism. It could in no way have been a socialist revolution because the socialism was a very bleak and unknown term back then and Marx was even born ( i think :huh: ). Anyway, if youve watched any videos or such on this revolution, then youd see that it was the bourgeiosie against the monarchy. ( Viva la bourgeoisie! ;) ) The bourgeiosie of pre-revolutionary France were mainly merchants who needed places and markets to sell their goods and this is how they arose to power and into capitalism. It was a historical transition.

Why was it bourgeios? Because like I said, the middle class back then, the bourgeoisie, needed markets to sell there goods and make a living. The peasants didnt need markets because thier life was bound to thier lord, and the upper monarchic classes had everything served in a golden platter. The peasants , at least most, became the proletariat. During thr industrial revolution, the middle class arose through workers who got promoted by their industrial bosses, which eventually amounted a new class of people who werent capitalists, but no longer had to slave off in factories and were able to send thier kids to school and even afford to hire maids and servants (some, dont get me wrong), thus we have the modern day classes in a general sense.

[Scars]

<<so what are you trying to tell me... you condone goat fucking?>>

Despite being from New Zealand, I do not condone any forms of beastiality :lol:

<<sure the terror was used at first to attack the old defenders of the monarchy, but the law of suspects that established the tribuals was defined pretty much under ambiguous "couter revolutionary" terms and was certainly far from just in many cases.>>

Of course. Many innocent people did die. However the the vast, overwhelming majority were not innocent. I shall never shed tears when one of the exploiters is decapitated.

hastalavictoria:

No, Socialism has a very, very long and complex history reaching back to Medieval times, however the term &#39;Socialism&#39; is a more recent invention, as is much of the jargon (which tends to come from the 19th Century). For instance the &#39;True Levellers Standard Advance&#39; (in my opinion the first Communistic manifesto) was written with theological Jargon and the Manifesto of Equals (The first modern Communistic manifesto) used Rousseauian jargon.

[chimx]

is your manifesto of equals babeuf&#39;s conspiracy of equals?

[tambourine_man]

it wasn&#39;t just the aristocracy that was killed.


No, of course not, however most of them were either members of the aristocracy or supporters/sympathisers (Monarchists and the like).

the vast majority of the victims (70% +) were poor peasants who feared losing the land that they had only just claimed from the nobility.
one could be executed for so little as complaining about the price of bread.

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:26 AM
is your manifesto of equals babeuf&#39;s conspiracy of equals?
The Conspiracy of Equals was the group led by Babeuf. After his arrest a supporter of Babeuf wrote the Manifesto of Equals and distributed it. Babeuf managed to read it (or was informed of its content) and endorced it as, more or less, the manifesto of the Conspiracy of Equals.

I quite like the document.