I need an explanation for this History question to help me study.
1. In your own words, what lesson or lessons can we learn from the French Revolution?
2. The French Revolution would come to serve as a terrible lesson to many, but also as an inspiration to others. These would include figures like Karl Marx and Joseph Engels, the architects of Communism. As we will see later, Rousseau’s ideas would hold great appeal for radicals who would seek to interpret things like “The General Will” for their own ideologies.
History shows us time and again that how people interpret ideas is often as important as the original idea itself. Neither Rousseau nor Marx would advocate the kind of political violence and internal repression that those inspired by their ideas would inflict on their respective peoples.
My question to you is… how much can we blame figures like Rousseau for the violence of the Reign of Terror? (Marx for the violence of Communism?) Is it their fault for coming up with radical ideas? Or is strictly the fault of those who interpret the ideas? How so?
3. Examine the quote from Rousseau at the beginning of the assignment. Any astute observer of history can observe the fact that radicals very often turn on their own. In their single-minded drive to reform society, they often become as bad as, or worse than, the system they seek to replace.
Why do you suppose this is? Are radicals essential to revolutions? Are they a liability? Are they both?
information:
Inspired by the American Revolution, the outbreak of the French Revolution promised a new dawn of egalitarian and equitable government in France. The reality would prove far different. Unlike the revolution in North America, the French Revolution would quickly diverge from the promises of democratic reforms and human rights to a government hell-bent on total reform of society. This would include a new calendar, a new religion and even politicized speech. People were to address each other as “Citroën” (citizen) instead of “Monsieur” or “Madame” (Sir or Ma’am). Failure to use the new mandated speech could result in death.
Under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, the French Revolution would devolve into a brutal campaign of oppression and bloodshed known as the “Reign of Terror.” From the September massacres of 1792 to the removal and execution of Robespierre in 1794, France would see unprecedented violence. During this time, scores of dissidents would be denounced as traitors to the revolution and summarily executed. All dissent was cast as being anti-revolutionary. The result was a climate of supreme fear in France People lived in fear of their neighbors for fear that they might be accused by them. All told some 40,000 people would come to lose their lives either to execution (17,000), murder or death in prison.
The French Revolution serves as a prime example of the dangers that radicals can pose to society as well as how reform movements can devolve into a new kind of oppression. Many of the revolutions most ardent supporters and architects in the early years would be cast as enemies after the radical Jacobin faction rose to power. Even the Enlightenment Philosophes, men like Condorcet, would not escape the violence. Perversely, this was all done under the guise of forcing acceptance to the General Will (Rousseau).
It is this violence that would come to characterize the French Revolution for most Europeans. The French Revolution did not usher in a new era of Republican government in Europe. Instead it ushered a renewed effort to maintain autocratic rule in Europe. The end result for France was not Republican government as envisaged by the Americans. The result for France was Napoleon, the one man who managed to bring stability and order to France.
0 comments