Successful French Revolution

How possible is it that the French Revolution could have resulted in the kind of secular, liberal democracy that was originally envisioned, rather than collapsing into the chaos of the terror and eventually being overthrown by Napoleon?

How would history be effected if the legacy of the revolution was a successful democracy in the heart of Europe, rather than a bloody mess followed by a series of bloody wars of conquest?
 
Liberal democracy? That's unlikely, especially if you mean the modern sense of those words. Even going back to 1800 or so nobody except the radicals in France was interested in either full on liberalism or democracy.

Now, a oligarchical republic on the other hand...
 
secular, liberal democracy that was originally envisioned

This envisionment is news to me. The majority of the population, the peasantry and the nascent rural proletariat beneath them, wanted the dissolution of old feudal rights and a rectification of land distribution. Which they achieved early and through force. The core of this consensus lasted through 20 years of war and persecution—that land distribution was here to say.

The next major motive force in the revolution, the sans culottes, wanted a stable urban bread price, as representative of a stabilisation of their wage which due to consumption patterns was heavily and overdependent on fluctuating bread prices. We know what they wanted from their assemblies, and their few self-developed leaders (Roux).

Basically what you're asking is: what if the bourgeoisie, intelligentsia and reformist aristocracy kept a lid on the Paris mob and its aspirations to fraternitie, egalitie and liberty? What if they kept a lid on land distribution.

yours,
Sam R.
 
Were the peasants really more of a force in the revolution than the sans-culottes? I figured the urban nature of the revolution would have made the latter more important...
 

RousseauX

Donor
Can we actually have a French Revolution discussion thread on the social/political side with someone knowledgeable like Sam seems to be.

Sam, do you basically agree with the Marxist argument that the revolution was one of the Bourgeoise using enlightenment ideas to dissolve the old feudal rights to better themselves?
 
Were the peasants really more of a force in the revolution than the sans-culottes? I figured the urban nature of the revolution would have made the latter more important...

The peasantry achieved many, if not most, of their demands very rapidly, in the first few months, if not the first night, of the revolution. Rather than cahiers of dolences, they burnt the rent, tax, tithe and feof rolls.

One could suggest that the rural reactionary movements against the centre was empowered by the very success of the peasantry in overturning the old order so rapidly at the point of production.
 
Can we actually have a French Revolution discussion thread on the social/political side with someone knowledgeable like Sam seems to be.

I feel that this may be false flattery. I am very much a post 1870 modernist.

Sam, do you basically agree with the Marxist argument that the revolution was one of the Bourgeoise using enlightenment ideas to dissolve the old feudal rights to better themselves?

I basically agree, but I am a Marxist, so this isn't "unexpected" theoretical conclusions. There are strong debates about how big the bourgeoisie were, and who they were, and whether the rentiers were bourgeois or not.

But yeah, basically I see that the beneficiaries of the value system by profit—ie a Marxist bourgeoisie, whether this correlates for the French "bourgeoisie" or not doesn't interest me, used state force to smash the institutional and social powers that were fettering their access to profit.

I think the idea that there were "enlightenment" views driving this is naïve unless we broaden the concept of "enlightenment" to breaking point. I don't remember the enlightenment discussing using credit fiascos to forcibly displace peasants from their land, by illegally buying up the results of defeudalisation at auctions that peasants couldn't attend. In fact this sounds very much like the old Tory and old Whig practices of enclosure rather than the enlightenment. Political Economy has more blame coming to it for the complexion of the Directorie than the Enlightenment does.

Marat and Robespierre and Roux were aberrations, wondrous and terrible, but ideology didn't drive the revolution: seizure of the Means and Tools of production did, in this case, the countryside from the aristocracy and later the peasantry.

(My evidence shows that the agricultural bourgeoisie was massive in France, much like the agricultural and sugar bourgeoisies were much larger than the manufacturing bourgeoisie in England.)

yours,
Sam R.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
I basically agree, but I am a Marxist, so this isn't "unexpected" theoretical conclusions.

How can you agree with this when even you note that the peasantry are the ones who destroyed the feudal order on the ground, long before feudalism in law was abolished by the urban assemblies?
 

RousseauX

Donor
But yeah, basically I see that the beneficiaries of the value system by profit—ie a Marxist bourgeoisie, whether this correlates for the French "bourgeoisie" or not doesn't interest me, used state force to smash the institutional and social powers that were fettering their access to profit.

I think the idea that there were "enlightenment" views driving this is naïve unless we broaden the concept of "enlightenment" to breaking point. I don't remember the enlightenment discussing using credit fiascos to forcibly displace peasants from their land, by illegally buying up the results of defeudalisation at auctions that peasants couldn't attend. In fact this sounds very much like the old Tory and old Whig practices of enclosure rather than the enlightenment. Political Economy has more blame coming to it for the complexion of the Directorie than the Enlightenment does.
Thank you for your post, but speaking of the directorate: do you think there was any possibility of avoiding Napoleonism or preserving the Republican system (maybe along Girondist lines without the Royalism) after the Thermidorian Reaction at all?

It seems to me that whoever was in charge afterwards always ended up trying to pursue a moderate cause of action, but the extremists on both ends (Royalists on one, Jacobins on the other) always meant it was unpopular and therefore the government was forced to dismiss elected officials to keep power. In the end this resulted in Napoleon's coup. Was there anyway of avoiding this at all?
 
The peasantry achieved many, if not most, of their demands very rapidly, in the first few months, if not the first night, of the revolution. Rather than cahiers of dolences, they burnt the rent, tax, tithe and feof rolls.

One could suggest that the rural reactionary movements against the centre was empowered by the very success of the peasantry in overturning the old order so rapidly at the point of production.

Certainly these achievements for the peasantry happened early. I'm questioning whether the peasantry actually achieved them themselves. I suspect it was urban liberals doing it for a combination of ideological reasons and a gift to the peasantry to keep them onside. How many of those elected to the Third Estate actually came from rural areas?

I would argue the failure of the reactionary movements showed they didn't actually have that much power when their views conflicted with the city dwellers.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
Certainly these achievements for the peasantry happened early. I'm questioning whether the peasantry actually achieved them themselves. I suspect it was urban liberals doing it for a combination of ideological reasons and a gift to the peasantry to keep them onside. How many of those elected to the Third Estate actually came from rural areas?

I would argue the failure of the reactionary movements showed they didn't actually have that much power when their views conflicted with the city dwellers.

The urban liberals didn't do much at first. The peasants actually physically broke into manor houses, destroyed records of feudal dues, and seized lands for themselves. Only after the Great Fear had worked its course did the National Assembly abolish feudalism de jure, when it had really already fallen de facto.
 
Certainly these achievements for the peasantry happened early. I'm questioning whether the peasantry actually achieved them themselves. I suspect it was urban liberals doing it for a combination of ideological reasons and a gift to the peasantry to keep them onside. How many of those elected to the Third Estate actually came from rural areas?

As MAlexMatt said, the peasantry quickly achieved their "goals", abolishing de facto the old feudal system using violence against the owning class. In a marxist interpretation, they appropriated their means of production. IIRC, most members of the third estates were members of the rural bourgeoisie, as the cities were still small at the time, and the provinces were not really equally represented (and in the different provinces, methods of designation varied, if i'm not mistaken).

I would argue the failure of the reactionary movements showed they didn't actually have that much power when their views conflicted with the city dwellers.

The rural areas were not totally opposed to the Jacobins regime and most of them were not opposed to the Thermidorian Reaction which greatly empowered them (with the censitary suffrage, very few rural dwellers didn't have the right to vote, while a very large part of the city dwellers were too poor to afford the tax). They were great supporters of Napoléon too.
 
The rural areas were not totally opposed to the Jacobins regime and most of them were not opposed to the Thermidorian Reaction which greatly empowered them (with the censitary suffrage, very few rural dwellers didn't have the right to vote, while a very large part of the city dwellers were too poor to afford the tax). They were great supporters of Napoléon too.


Most peasants weren't ready to be counter-revolutionary until they were sure that a Royalist restoration wouldn't mean the nobility taking the land back.

Re Napoleon, they may have supported him at first, but istr that in 1814 he disguised himself in a British uniform for fear of the countryfolk whose sons he had sent to their deaths in Spain ans Russia,
 
Re Napoleon, they may have supported him at first, but istr that in 1814 he disguised himself in a British uniform for fear of the countryfolk whose sons he had sent to their deaths in Spain ans Russia,
That doesn't really mean much. He also got spooked by one of the lamest coup attempts in history after the failure of the 1812 campaign and rushed back home to secure his power - turned out it was a damp squib and all the work had already been done for him. Napoleon, like any decent paranoid monarch, saw phantoms everywhere, regardless of whether they actually were there or not, and took precautions against all of them.
 
Mikestone8 said:
Re Napoleon, they may have supported him at first, but istr that in 1814 he disguised himself in a British uniform for fear of the countryfolk whose sons he had sent to their deaths in Spain ans Russia,

Never heard that part of the life of Napoleon... Could you cite your source?

It's not that I don't believe it to be true but I'm skeptical. This doesn't really look like Napoleon's character to me.

I'm not questionning his impopularity though. Napoleon was like every general: his popularity increase after each victory and sinks after each defeat. By 1814, as France was losing, his popularity sank.
 
How can you agree with this when even you note that the peasantry are the ones who destroyed the feudal order on the ground, long before feudalism in law was abolished by the urban assemblies?

The peasantry rather obviously reconstructed themselves as a petits bourgeois. See the forms of land possession instituted after the redistribution, they're not a feudal reapportionment.

I don't understand why a Marxist would be bothered with the last formal elements of the elimination of the superstructure, when the real revolution in the forms of ownership of means and tools of production are actually occurring on the ground? It seems more that you're imagining that Marxist historiography is a Stalinist era deterministic Marxism, that never existed outside of the Bolshevist parties, and only rarely within them. Compare and contrast this fantasy to the actual methods of EP Thompson.

yours,
Sam R.
 
…speaking of the directorate: do you think there was any possibility of avoiding Napoleonism or preserving the Republican system (maybe along Girondist lines without the Royalism) after the Thermidorian Reaction at all?

It seems to me that whoever was in charge afterwards always ended up trying to pursue a moderate cause of action, but the extremists on both ends (Royalists on one, Jacobins on the other) always meant it was unpopular and therefore the government was forced to dismiss elected officials to keep power. In the end this resulted in Napoleon's coup. Was there anyway of avoiding this at all?

Elected officials aren't the sine qua non of capitalism.—But, I can't see a way out of the quagmire by this stage. Perhaps if the radical bourgeoisie had been kept out of power to begin with. (I am, for comparative purposes, constantly surprised that the American Revolution did not turn to a far more radical position, the standard claim I've heard here is that the very lightness of British rule meant that the revolution did not cause the radical response in the American bourgeoisie elite).

France didn't have a recent tradition of intermediary aristocrats shielding the King by holding Parliament. In contrast Britain could activate these reserves of power in a crisis and basically institute dictatorial governance without losing moderation or democracy. I don't see how France can really achieve such a dictatorial moderation without, as observed, an absolutist.

Perhaps if France had a greater depth of effective intermediary structures under absolutism, that held their own "power." But again, this butterflies away 1789.— What if France were England in the 18th century?

yours,
Sam R.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
The peasantry rather obviously reconstructed themselves as a petits bourgeois. See the forms of land possession instituted after the redistribution, they're not a feudal reapportionment.

I don't understand why a Marxist would be bothered with the last formal elements of the elimination of the superstructure, when the real revolution in the forms of ownership of means and tools of production are actually occurring on the ground? It seems more that you're imagining that Marxist historiography is a Stalinist era deterministic Marxism, that never existed outside of the Bolshevist parties, and only rarely within them. Compare and contrast this fantasy to the actual methods of EP Thompson.

yours,
Sam R.

This is less about Marxism and more about this:

"Sam, do you basically agree with the Marxist argument that the revolution was one of the Bourgeoise using enlightenment ideas to dissolve the old feudal rights to better themselves?"

Directly disagreeing with this:

"The peasantry achieved many, if not most, of their demands very rapidly, in the first few months, if not the first night, of the revolution."

How is an actual rentier class going to be called 'bourgeoise'?
 
This is less about Marxism and more about this:

"Sam, do you basically agree with the Marxist argument that the revolution was one of the Bourgeoise using enlightenment ideas to dissolve the old feudal rights to better themselves?"

Directly disagreeing with this:

"The peasantry achieved many, if not most, of their demands very rapidly, in the first few months, if not the first night, of the revolution."

How is an actual rentier class going to be called 'bourgeoise'?

The actual French rentiers of the 19th century were bourgeois in that they subsisted off capital held in long term bonds; they were perhaps the first and most pathetic "small" as opposed to "petits" bourgeois.

The revolution was more than just the night of the peasants burning the rent rolls. The urban bureaucracy of competent nobles and aristocrats, and competent newly made nobles and common leaders of the absolutist regime used a number of enlightenment concepts to solidify the control of the newly forming state over the nation. Their first acts, in many cases, involved attempts to control the credit structure and change the rural distribution of the land in their favour.

The fact that the French ended the war with an absolutist state firmly organised on capitalist lines, and that the reactions were continually subject to the impositions of the "democratic" "nation" including the irreversible new post-feudal relationships in the countryside looks like a successful bourgeois revolution.

Many of the "feudal rights" were the systemic rights of direct extraction that had already been superseded by Louis XIV and XV into the income acting as a basis for credit. If you compare the fiscal state in France to the state in England, you can get a comparative understanding of the bourgeois transformation caused by the revolution. Napoleon's reserve capacities found in the nation, much like the ad hocery of the early United States, represents a fundamentally different access to economic reality—that's the bourgeois revolution based on enlightenment values. Putting up the nation as the reserve on credit.

yours,
Sam R.
 
Nygaard, Bertel. "The Meanings of 'Bourgeois Revolution': Conceptualizing the French Revolution" Science and Society 71.2 (Apr 2007): 146-172. gives a good ground for reconciling the general Marxist explanation with the nuanced nature of history, Abstract excerpt: "the "bourgeois revolution" concept can be shown to contain a much richer potential than the simplistic and widely rejected "orthodox" notion of a capitalist bourgeoisie as a social agent with a fully developed class consciousness and revolutionary intentions. On the basis of a methodologically ambitious view of concepts in general, Marx starts from a general conception of the state as alienated human potentials and proceeds through multiple periodizations towards more particular determinations. The question of the "bourgeois" character of the Revolution is thus posed with regard to its international relations and processual aspects, rather than to any nationally framed confrontation of capitalist and feudal classes."

yours,
Sam R.
 
Top