History of Revolution 101

Maximilien Robespierre has been crucified in the annals of history for the Terror. Of course he was–yes he was responsible for the deaths of many. However, given the history of France and what he and his cohorts eventually accomplished and honestly, who he pissed off by changing the entire dynamics of government in Europe–I am wondering how fair the historical assessment really is.

What most people don’t realize is that he was also a French patriot.

Yes, he and the Jacobins were responsible for guillotining 1200 nobles, including the King and Queen of France. He was also called “The Incorruptible” by the peasants because he refused any and all bribes as he attempted to redistribute the wealth of France back into the hands of the citizens.  He was also one of the few advocates [lawyers] who fought not only for constitutional rights but was in court on a regular basis, defending the rights of the poor before the revolution.

To understand why the Jacobins used the guillotine, one must understand that Royalty had been burning at the stake, boiling in oil, hanging, strangulation, drawing and quartering, disembowelment, castration, torture and other nefarious death methods that were all excruciating methods of execution. The Jacobins, using humanistic values, believed the guillotine to be a swift, efficient and fairly painless method of execution. Considering the alternatives, the revolutionaries were for their time and age, using the most humane method of punishment available for that age.

It was actually his political cronies and the army who sought his downfall. The military wanted him gone so they could take control against Austrian front since Robespierre was flagrantly anti-war, and his political cohorts in the academic and middle classes seeking to grab the reigns of control for themselves, an act they frequently accused him of committing. The Jacobins sought rule of law–not rule by people–previous French writers such as Rousseau were actually the authors of what would become the American constitution and system of government.

However, talk of liberation is cheap. Revolution historically reverts to repression for at least some period of time before it relaxes its grip.

What many don’t realize is how thousands of French citizens died of starvation every year for years before the revolution because the court of France bankrupted the country between paying for the American revolution [yes, surprise Americans--they PAID for it, to get revenge at the British for booting them out of Canada and assorted other places, such a revolution must be financed] and personal luxury , while the other 95%  of the working peasant population were starving to death from inflation and taxation. The common folk were so desperate they were breaking into bakeries, graineries and everywhere else to get their hands on food. Various factions were in chronic protest against the government.

I find it interesting that Robespierre has been flayed by history for The Terror as if he was the only responsible party.

Somehow, I think death by guillotining many of the parties guilty for misery of 95% of the country is somewhat more “just” than the  mass starvation of the innocent.  I certainly can’t excuse some of the executions that were politically motivated towards purging those who were not in 100% agreement with Jacobin policies–including some Jacobins.

Mass execution is a human rights horror but I can’t help but wonder how much of the reason Robespierre was so hated was due to the massive uprising–the entire situation in Europe changed towards democratic government, separation of church and state and academic freedom.  Unfortunately for France, Robespierre was a better advocate and more honest in his opinions than he was politically astute.  I suspect he didn’t realize the revolution might really happen that soon. Due to the Jacobins winning France, obtuse European monarchies were willing to negotiate parliaments and constitutions because if they did not–they were afraid of igniting the working and middle class into revolution.

As with all revolutions - eventually it ate its own, including Robespierre.

The obvious result of any popular uprising is that it eventually turns back on itself spending vast amounts of time on “counter-revolutionary” accusations since a new revolution can’t withstand the onslaught of those who want things to “go back to the way they were” or those who have completely different ideas of how to manage a government–namely, those who benefited from the past regime or who have the wealth, power and often military might to turn back the clock or go in a different direction. Inevitably, there is jockeying for power and privilege including civil war.

1600 prisoners of the revolution were massacred by the infuriated population of Paris by beating, disemboweling, rape, battery and other brutal methods before Robespierre began the trials and executions. Austria was invading and sympathy was beginning to form against the elected representatives led by Robespierre.

It is also an unfortunate part of revolutionary reality that other countries will attempt to snap up real estate or use their military to reinstate the previous order or a more sympathetic government to gain political and economic advantages. This is precisely why the French paid for the American revolution–an act that led to their own revolution.

The first set of problems after a revolution including Russia, France and China is gaining control of populace submerged in revolutionary mayhem. From the outside, this looks like incredible brutality and it generally is horrifying. In Russia, more people were imprisoned and executed within a few years after the revolution than had been destroyed during the reigns of the previous two Czars.

What are the signs of a potential revolution?

• The top 5-10% control the wealth of the nation
• Lack of response towards the needs of the people by government officials
• Massive ineffectual government bureaucracy
• A strong, skilled and artisan middle class reduced to  poverty
• Enlightened academic or liberal ideals becoming the “normal” way of thinking for the nation while the government policies remain backwards and unresponsive to social change
• Government corruption
• Indecisive government leadership
• Improved communication of progressive ideals amongst the citizens [printing press, internet]
• Government usurpation of the nation’s wealth through foreign wars resulting in repressive taxation
• Inflation/Depression
• Enough armament financing or access to massive weaponry [including in some cases, robbery and theft] for the revolution to occur

Any of this sounding familiar and uncomfortable?

There are only two solutions I’ve ever figured out to alleviate the above conditions. One is a “movement” such as the “Bolivian Water Revolt” where the common folk rise up and simply refuse to participate in the abominations perpetrated by government. It also presupposes that the government will eventually accede to popular demands.

The second is the revolution.

Unless the governments in North America become more responsive to the increasing “movements” that are arising right now, stop bankrupting their countries in foreign warfare and actively engage in equalizing the nations’ wealth, I suspect we are all on the road to the inglorious second option. Generally speaking–it’s also usually the more brutal dictatorial factions that win control of the country for some period of time after a revolution.

I hope I’m not here to see it.

MetisRebel I tolerate dissent readily. Debate me, go for it. Jump on it. However, I expect that we are adults and no matter how much pain and suffering any of us have been through, or how personally affected we may be by this, I believe we are capable of tolerating dissent. In fact, the true measure of freedom is the extent to which a society tolerates differing opinions.