The Arguments For and Against the French Revolution - Essay Example

The French Revolution Consider the views of Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. What are the arguments for and against the French Revolution? The story of the French Revolution as well as the causes of the French revolting against their king is the reflection of a series of several ideological trends that had developed towards the end of the eighteenth century. As discussed by Vincent (2004), an investigation into the nineteenth century European socialist movement would be useless without taking into account the political expression which the French Revolution helped to create. With regard to this idea, there are two primary individuals that have to be discussed. One of the individuals found the basis of what is essentially the French communist movement and helped shape the Revolution as well as the French government which came about after the Revolution. The other individual founded liberal tradition which developed in England. Both of these ideologies existed side by side and through their combination were eventually formed into the socialist tradition which we find in the aftermath of the French Revolt. As per the purpose of government defined by Paine, the only function of a government is to protect the rights inherent to every human being that are considered to be a part of natural law. In such a situation, any institutions which does not benefit a country becomes illegitimate and this includes the monarchy, the nobility and even the military which is supposed to defend the country. This is a very powerful argument for the French Revolution since the monarchy and the nobility were certainly being cruel to the people. Paine’s influence regarding the idea of government is clearly present in both the great revolutions of his time. For instance, in Common Sense, Thomas Paine talks passionately about seeking independence from the cruel king of Britain and looking for ways that the American people can have a revolution to overthrow the authority of Britain by offering people the simple rules of government in which monarchy has no place. While he supports the removal of kings who act as tyrants, he does not accept the overthrow of all forms of governments since such situations could lead to anarchy. He accepts that some manner of order remains an essential requirement for society (Larkin, 2005). His book, The Rights of Man is dedicated to George Washington as well as the Marquis de Lafayette who were both great revolutionaries. This shows that he had an understanding of the importance of the American and the French Revolutions towards making the principles of a modern democratic system (Vincent, 2004). The Declaration of the Rights of Man has the basic premise that men are born free and remain free as well as equal when it comes to their individual rights. Additionally, Paine states that the final purpose of any political association is to preserve the rights of man. These rights include liberty, the right to property, having a level of security, and resistance to the oppression of others. In his opinion, the government and the nation itself becomes the source of sovereignty and no man or a group of individuals can gain any authority which is not expressly derived from the authority of the state. As noted by Kaye (2005), these points are reflective of the self-evident truths which are clearly expressed in the American Declaration of Independence. In a direct contrast to the position taken by Paine, Burke suggests that human beings are naturally corrupt and would need a dictator to control their actions and this can only be produced through a hereditary form of government. Burke comes across as a supporter of an aristocratic system and puts no faith in the ideals of democracy. He believes that true social stability would come about if the masses are ruled by a minority of wealthy individuals. The elite in a society become the lawful inheritors of wealth and religious power and thus they could ensure that justice is served (Kirk, 2001). Understandably, Paine is quite critical of Burke and he sarcastic humour to refute the points made by Burke. Paine’s arguments defy the assertions made by Burke regarding hereditary wisdom and consider them to be offensive. Burke reflects on the legitimacy of an aristocratic system and compares the decisions made by one system to the other. This line of argument given by Burke is refuted by Paine when he shows that the institution of Monarchy comes from William of Normandy who forcibly imposed his rule. In this way, Paine declares Burke’s to be argument null and void since the precedent and the idea of tradition is nothing more than an appeal to an invading army who deprived the Anglo-Saxons of their freedoms (Kirk, 2003). Paine also proposes to bring reforms to the English system of government. His first demand is to have a written constitution which is created by an assembly that is similar to the American constitution. He also calls for the elimination of all titles which would help in creating a more democratic system to remove unfair practises such as primogeniture. He also proposes a budget that seeks an alliance with France and America which would help in eliminating war and military focused expenses. He also desires economic reforms in terms of tax reductions for the poor and education related subsidies. Finally he wants progressive taxation, declaring that the wealthy members of society should be taxed more heavily to lighten the burden of taxes which are paid by the working class (Kaye, 2005). Although Paine as well as his writings are seen as egalitarian in nature and democratic in their approach, there are a few instances where he exhibits traits which are opposite to these ideals. For instance, Paine says the Jews prove that the human species has a tendency to degenerate when they separated from society, and that they are inter-marrying constantly with each other (Vincent, 2004). While this statement represents the anti-Semitic ideas which were prevalent at the time, they do not fall in line with other ideas presented by Paine. When Paine went to France, he was quickly elected to the National Convention simply because his ideas were highly appreciated by the French. On the other hand, Burke was completely opposed to the idea of revolution as he considered it to be destructive. He hated lawlessness and disorder as well as the so called doctrines of rights which he thought went against the values of society and the established political orders. Revolutions ran counter to the idea of continuity and he feared that the principles and actions of the French might infect the British and cause them to revolt. It seems that Burke wanted to defend the status quo even when it was simply being changed by force. His hostility towards the French Revolution led him to ignore the abuses of the monarchy as well as the injustice that was suffered by the French (Kirk, 2003). Kaye (2005) says that Paine’s approval may be considered natural since he had spent a lot of time witnessing the creation of the American republic that promised democracy and state mandated institutions. He had seen a spirit of independence as well as a political maturity which could only develop with time into something more powerful than itself. In conclusion, while both men had good intentions at heart, their words and their suggestions were only used by politicians of the time and they still continued to be misused today to support one viewpoint or another with regard to democracy and the ideals of government. Word Count: 1,326 Works Cited Kaye, H. 2005. Thomas Paine and the Promise of America. Hill and Wang. Kirk, R. 2001. The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. Regnery Publishing. Kirk, R. 2003. Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered. ISI Books. Larkin, E. 2005. Thomas Paine and the Literature of Revolution. Cambridge University Press Vincent, B. 2004. The Transatlantic Republican: Thomas Paine and the Age of Revolutions. Rodopi. Read More