The Effect of the French Revolution - Essay Example

The French Revolution was not a revolution in terms of politics only; it was not a simple matter of replacing one set of rulers with another. There were far larger ideas behind the revolution, and the consequences of the revolution were felt throughout Europe. It was one of the most important historic events in the last several hundred years. There are many factors that caused the revolution. There was the Enlightenment, with figures such as Rousseau and Voltaire, that fueled the revolution on an ideological level. There was the ineptitude of the aristocracy, which put the country in huge debt by waging wars and funding the American Revolution, forcing poverty upon much of the country. Also, there was the rise of the capitalist bourgeois class that clashed with the aristocratic noble classes over political power. Though there was a new rising bourgeois class, France was still very much tied to old ways of politics: France in the eighteenth century still possessed a large measure of medievalism—a condition reflected in its diversified legal structure, in its powerful guilds, in its communes, in the church, in universities, and in the patriarchal family (Nisbet 157). These factors are tied to the overall effects of the revolution on France and all of Europe, those effects being a rise in individualism, patriotism, and nationalism. These ideas were trenchantly in opposition to the prevailing monarchies of the time that ruled over Europe at the time of the revolution. The French Revolution did not merely replace one set of rulers with another; it replaced an entire ideological system with another throughout the western world. As was mentioned, the causes of the revolution are very much tied together with the effects. The debt and poverty caused by the decisions of the monarchy were one of the chief concerns of the new bourgeois class: “a new a revolutionary class, the bourgeoisie, had risen in wealth and power during the eighteenth century, but had been denied political power and social recognition by the old ruling class of aristocrats and nobles” (Stromberg 88). This aspect has two main ideas behind it. First, the capitalists were financially hurt because of the decisions of the aristocracy. They were subject to the decisions of the aristocracy, as these decisions had a direct effect upon the economy of the country in which they functioned. To put it specifically, the decisions of the aristocracy had a direct effect on the capitalists ability to make money. Secondly, because the bourgeoisie had no political power, they were unable to attempt to make changes that would benefit them and the country as a whole. If they had had political power, then they would have been partly to blame for the debt and economic hardships that the country was facing, but because they hadn’t any power, they could completely blame the monarchy for the situation. This enabled them to rally all of the lower classes against the monarchy. The bourgeois wanted to replace the monarchy in order to be able to make the kind of political decisions that would not lead to the debt and economic hardships. The revolution was not limited to economic aspects of the country. Individualism was another very important aspect of the revolution. People were no longer satisfied with the idea of hereditary succession being the means by which people came to power. This implied that somehow people were naturally born to be superior to other people. Considering the debt and poverty of the time, it is easy to see how people would strongly disagree with this idea, so the idea that all people were equal strongly appealed to the revolutionaries: “Nobles, clergy, judges, and even ordinary taxpayers lost whatever special standing they had gained over the centuries. From now on, everyone was to be identical before the law” (Enlightenment). With everyone equal, all had rights to make decisions affecting the outcome of their life and work were no longer limited by decisions they had no control over. To quote an example of the legislation of the time, “The Law Le Chapelier, in 1791, declared that ‘there is no longer any corporation within the state; there is but the particular interest of each individual and the general interest‘” (Nisbet 188). Tied to the idea of individualism is the idea of liberty. Since everyone was equal, no one had the right to do harm to others merely for expressing differing opinions: “Liberty meant freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom from unreasonable government” (Enlightenment). People of the time were subject to punishment if they spoke out against the monarchy. Also, as the monarchy had no system of checks and balances to where they were held responsible to the people that they governed, the monarchy could choose to punish people using any methods, such as death by guillotine. Moreover, the monarchy used such extreme forms of punishment to discourage any sort of expression that was negative of the government. The idea of individualism and liberty was not proposed because people wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted without any sort of repercussions: “The ideal of Rousseau was individual freedom—freedom, however, not in the sense of immunity from political authority but that of withdrawal from the oppressions of society” (Nisbet 157-8). Obviously people didn’t want for there to be no punishments for wrong doings. This would have allowed for people to oppress other people, and it was exactly this freedom from oppression that was the desired result of the Revolution. Also, people wanted freedom of religion, as religion is very much an expression of a person’s beliefs and individualism. Individualism and liberty, as we can see, were intricately woven together. Following the ideas of individualism follows through to another idea behind the Revolution, nationalism. Nationalism is pride in one’s own country. When political power is determined by hereditary succession, a disconnection is created between a country and its people. This is because they are merely subject to the decisions of the ruling class. They have no opportunity to decide the outcome of their lives. Because of this lack of ability to decide their own lives, the country becomes an entity that enforces its will upon the people of the country. If they feel the country has been forced upon them, then people would have no reason to taken any sort of pride in the country. Also, since the regular people are separated from the decision making, people have also would not naturally have any source of pride in their country as they are not responsible for anything that happens in the country. When people are all equal, all people have the ability to affect change in their country. Because people have this ability to affect change, they can change the country to fit something that they would want. Since it would then be something that they would want it to be, people then become proud of their country. Also, because they were personally responsible for changing the country, they feel a sense of accomplishment, which is another source of pride to have in one’s country. As we can see, a sense of individualism would then also give rise to the ability to take more pride in one’s country. If the French Revolution had been isolated to just France, then it would not have been such an influential event. Most of the western world was, in fact, affected by it. For instance, the fate of America was largely tied up with the French Revolution. France, as rival of England, funded the American revolutionaries hoping that a continued conflict would weaken England and the loss of the colonies would be a financial setback for the powerful nation. This funding, however, led to the debt that put such a strain on the country. It is perhaps ironic to consider that the French monarchy’s decision to aid the American revolution, a move that the aristocracy hoped would aid their own cause, ended up in effect being the causative agent that brought down the monarchic system all over Europe. The Revolution’s influence over the Americas was not limited to this aspect; the ideas of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment were also included in the new country’s political documents: “American revolutionaries put some of their ideas into practice in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States” (Enlightenment). Benjamin Franklin also visited France and was influenced by many of the ideas of the Revolution and the Enlightenment, and he used his influence to spread these ideas through the Americas. Though the American Revolution was made in part responsible by the French monarchy, it ended up being more profoundly influenced ideologically by the Revolution. Not everyone was in favor of the Revolution, such as Edmund Burke. He saw the influence of the ideas of the Revolution spreading beyond the borders of France: “Burke died in 1797, terrified by the fear that Europe, including most emphatically Great Britain, was about to be swept into revolution” (Palmer 65). In fact, Ireland, the Netherlands, Italy , Switzerland, Greece, and Germany went through revolutions in some sense or another, being political or ideological in nature (Palmer 65-66). Many of these other countries had similar situations of a rising bourgeois class coming into opposition with the monarchic system. The large amount of countries embracing the actions, political movement, economic framework, and intellectual thought led to the widespread change of Europe and the western world in general. This process can still be said to be expanding as countries in the Middle East and Asia are moving towards government systems that embrace more individual freedom. From this view the French Revolution is still occurring over three hundred years after its beginnings. The Revolution has been so influential over Europe that almost all ideological movements, even seemingly opposing movements, can all be traced back to the French revolution in some sense: “Many other self-conscious ideological alternatives arose during this ear—nationalism, liberalism, socialism, and eventually communism—all as a result of, or in reaction to, the French Revolution” (Legacies). Also, though proponents of fascism might initially claim to be opposed to the ideas of the French Revolution, some historians have traced certain ideas essential to fascism back to the French Revolution. An examination of how these different ideologies will show how exactly these different ideologies were influenced by the French Revolution. While the people involved with the French Revolution might have not agreed with the ideas of socialism, such as the lack of private property (Gottschalk 438), there is no doubt that ideas found in the French Revolution helped to found the basic tenets of socialism, and furthermore communism. The link between Rousseau and Marx has also been commented on: “We may sum up, therefore, by saying in Marx’s three main points…we find a transformation of the concepts of Rousseau’s theory” (Rotenstreich 719). The ideas of individualism and liberty are important to socialism. Since all people are equal, then all people should strive to help one another in times of need. This is the main idea behind socialism. People give up their own needs in order to help to benefit others. This is in particular a more extreme version of the ideas of the Revolution. Also, the Revolution happened in part because the aristocracy controlled a disproportionate amount of the wealth and property. The Revolution called for a re-distribution of wealth from the aristocracy to the people. Socialism just extended this idea ever further to include the re-distribution of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. Furthermore, it was necessary for the bourgeoisie to take the wealth from the aristocracy so the proletariat could then turn around and demand the re-distribution of wealth among them as well. Without the bourgeoisie having taken the wealth and power from the aristocracy, there would be no foundations for Marx to base his principles upon. Also, the French Revolution was about social justice, and socialism thought of itself as the ultimate social justice movement: The word socialism was itself not used until 1832, the cherished movement was the culmination of a long tradition of striving for social justice, of which phases of the French Revolution were only recent manifestations” (Gottschalk 438). We can see the connection most strongly between the Revolution and socialism as they were movements of social equality. While the French Revolutionaries might not have considered socialism the natural extension of their ideas, there can be no doubt that the basis for socialism was in fact the Revolutions ideas of individualism, liberty, and equality. Though fascism can be viewed as the opposite end of the spectrum in regards to socialism, fascism can also trace its roots back to the French Revolution as well. The main aspect of the Revolution that was to influence fascism was that of nationalism, for fascism is nothing if not a nationalistic movement: The French Revolution did provide an important background for the fascist conception of politics…the French Revolution put its stamp on a novel view of the sacred: it created a civil religion which modern nationalism made its own, and fascism, whatever its variety, was, above all, a nationalist movement (Mosse 5). In the monarchic system, the masses were simply the source of labor for which the aristocracy was able to derive its wealth. In a sense, the aristocracy was a parasite in regards to the masses, and the aristocracy did not require for the masses to be particularly proud or enabled by their country. The French Revolution was, in fact, dependent upon the masses, for it was the masses that rose up and demanded a re-distribution of the wealth. The masses had been politicized: “for the first time in modern history they functioned as a pressure group and not just through episodic uprisings …Stressing this aspect of the French Revolution should clarify its importance to fascism” (Mosse 7). Another connection between fascism and the Revolution lies in both movements reliance upon the feeling of participation by the masses. As the lower classes were not able to participate in the decision making in any sense when the aristocracy was in power, it was important to imbue them with a sense that they were participating somehow in the future of their country. This is very important in order to promote nationalism. Fascism took similar steps to create a sense of participation in its people: Whether in fascist mass meetings of the great festivals of the Revolution, men and women considered themselves active participants, and for many of them this was to prove a more important involvement than representative government could provide, removed as it was from any direct contact with the people (Mosse 8). This sense of participation was one of the most important aspects of both the Revolution and fascism, and in this we can see how the roots of fascism are also to be found in the French Revolution. Though socialism and fascism are ideologically opposed to each other, we can see how they both can trace their roots to different aspects of the French Revolution. Considering how a great deal of European history during the twentieth century involved conflicts between socialist and fascist governments, this truly shows the great influence that the Revolution has had upon Europe as a whole. France’s position as the first country to inspire the widespread revolution was due to its unique situation of economic hardships and intellectual thinkers fanning the fires of dissent. In this context we can view the French Revolution as merely being an aspect of a larger change in the widespread thinking of the time as opposed to being a singular event that changed the face of Europe. In this view France merely happened to be the first country to have a revolution, and it was very much possible for another country to have been the first country to have a revolution and inspire the rest of the continent to follow suit. As it was, however, France was the first country to revolutionize its country and inspire other countries, and for this France stands as the country which provided the impetus for much of modern European history. From a economic, political, and philosophical point of view, the Revolution of France revolutionized Europe. Works Cited “Enlightenment and Human Rights.” Equality, liberty, fraternity, Available at Gottschalk, Louis R., “Communism During the French Revolution, 1789-1793.” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Sep., 1925), pp. 438-450 “Legacies of the Revolution.” Equality, liberty, fraternity, Available at Nisbet, Robert A., “The French Revolution and the Rise of Sociology in France.” The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Sep., 1943), pp. 156-164. Mosse, George L. “Fascism and the French Revolution.” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 5-26 Palmer, R.R., “Reflections on the French Revolution.” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Mar., 1952), pp. 64-80 Rotenstreich, Nathan, “Between Rousseau and Marx.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Jun., 1949), pp. 717-719. Stromberg, Roland, N. “Reevaluating the French Revolution.” The History Teacher, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Nov., 1986), pp. 87-107 Read More