French_Recolution_Interpretations

The French Revolution was one of the main events in History in the eighteenth century. It changed the face of France and also Europe. It began in 1789 and has had major and lasting effects. The French Revolution has many different interpretations on how the French Revolution effected the world and what it did. I will outline the views of the Marxist and revisionist interpretations throughout my essay, I want to compare and contrast the ideological and philosophical ideas of two writers on both sides of the argument focusing on different writers on both sides of the debate. The Marxist interpretation really focuses on the Revolution being a war between the classes. They focus on town dwellers who were putting money into communities in France were not given the position which they felt they deserved in the social or political system during this period. Marxist ideas were that the Revolution was “ a force of progress. The fruit and vindication of the enlightenment, it set out to emancipate not just the French but humanity as a whole, from the grip of superstition, prejudice, routine, and unjustifiable social inequities by resolute and democratic political action”this evokes that the Marxist interpretation believes that it has left a lasting effect on the world and that it encourages others to take this point of action. The likes of Jean Jaures wrote on Jacobinism in 1898. He focused on the social aspects of the Revolution and following him was Mathiez his view on Robespierre was that he “was not a dictator hungry for arbitrary power, but a democratic politician responding to popular pressures from Parisian workers” he was passionate about the Terror and Robespierre and did not agree with Aulard’s Danton and viewed him as a “corrupt bourgeois politician” to Mathiez Robespierre was a hero and he detested Danton which his antagonist admired. He is the second major Marxist writer on the French Revolution. Another Marxist writer Lefebvre discusses in his writings how Peasants suffered throughout the Revolution due to food shortages, taxes were high and Nobles avoid these taxes and he believed that a Revolution was necessary to bring better authority and a new beginning for the French people. He does not even mention women in his views only once about a march to Versailles and also leaves out other important people such as religious figures like priests who played a part in the revolution fighting against aristocratic Bishops who would help the third estate against the first two estates. He does focus on the condition and lives of the people and what they live in and how it affects the social relations amongst the French citizens. He believes this is what caused the Revolution. That there were people providing money and land for the Monarchy and they were not getting any political power back in return and were excluded from the legal structure. This brought about the Bourgeois. He is placing the success of the Revolution mainly on the men in the third estate and not giving any concern to other people who played parts in the French Revolution. The Marxist interpretation is that it was a single group within the Revolution that struggled against the Clergy and Nobles. Their idea is that from peasants to the Bourgeois they were all together in the revolution. Lefebvre writings are all labelled with the different people who dealt in the French revolution I think this is to show and highlight that all classes were one in the battle in the Revolution. The revisionist view became popular after World War two. The revisionists do not believe that the revolution was between the old and new social classes which were around during the eighteenth century. It was possible they thought of it as a small issue that brought more problems after it was over and they regard it as being negative on the world. Revisionists thought that if it was a bourgeois revolution capitalism would have been booming like other countries during that period i.e. Great Britain, and so the revisionists reject it. They believe that the destruction in the French revolution caused from all the deaths to the collapse of government that it was more of a bloody uprising than anything. To them it had no positives. Cobban led the interpretations respectively in earlier periods and it is him who attacked various Marxist interpretations, he has left a legacy challenging such interpretations and he is known as the “father of revisionism”. For Cobban he sees the revolution as a political revolution with social conflict. Cobban recognized that the Revolution did not change the quality in social life. There was still social inequality in France. Males were still the dominant sex and females lost rights during the Revolution which they had under Napoleon. “Notables” which were nobles still had political and economic power this evokes that there still were social differences. Cobban spelt little time trying to come up with his own and new interpretations but more on discrediting that of the Marxist “He admitted that he spent little effort in providing new interpretations to replace the old”. Cobban had the idea that feudalism still existed after the French revolution and also the seigniorial rights were wrongfully put on the Nobility instead should have been held by the non-nobility. The French Revolution was a period of massive social, economic, and political change in France that lasted roughly from 1787 to 1799. The Marxist view was that the Revolution was driven by class struggle and should be analysed in class terms it is the replacement of a pre-capitalist regime of some sort followed by a social transformation – legal forms and so on – which clears the ground for the development of capitalism. In the most general possible sense it clears the ground for industrialisation and the creation of a modem type of economy of one sort or another. It destroyed feudalism and saw the beginning of capitalism in France. The great fear was led by the bourgeoisie and though other parties participated it was mainly for their own benefit. Feudalism had may already ended though. The peasants also played a huge part in taking part the feudal system. Marx said that the bourgeois revolutionaries should only be blue collars this was not the case. The line in the bourgeoisie wasn’t always clear, because some of the bourgeoisie had aristocratic ties. “The word “revisionist” appeared in political thought as a pejorative of designating the strain on Marxism,” The revisionist argument concerned the Marxists, who despite their great knowledge about the revolution, began to “question what exactly constituted a bourgeoisie revolution, and whether such revolutions actually brought the bourgeoisie to power even when they occurred.” In conclusion the debate and ideas of The French Revolution goes on and I believe will always as there are strong points from a Marxist view and the revisionist view can make points of disagreement but not their own. Bibliography: 1, William Doyle. (). The French Revolution: a very short introduction. Available: http://books.google.ie/books'id=OEi4bYIUP1sC&pg=PT110&lpg=PT110&dq=a+force+of+progress.+The+fruit+and+vindication+of+the+enlightenment,+it+set+out+to+emancipate+not+just+the+French+but+humanity+as+a+w 2. Gary Kates (1998). : recent debates and new controversies . 2nd ed. London: Routledge. P2-3. 3. Cobban (1994). Social Interpretation of the French Revolution. 2nd ed. cambridge university: cambridge university. p13-16. 4. Claude Langlois, Timothy Tackett. (). The French revolution and “revisionism. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/494395. Last accessed 7-12-2011. 5. Eric J. Hobsbawm (1990). Echoes of the Marseillaise: two centuries look back on the French Revolution. Finland: Library of Congress cataloging. -------------------------------------------- [ 1 ]. The French Revolution: a very short introduction By William Doyle [ 2 ]. The French Revolution: recent debates and new controversies By Gary Kates p3 (London,1998) [ 3 ]. The French Revolution: recent debates and new controversies By Gary Kates p2 [ 4 ]. Cobban, Social Interpretation of the French Revolution, pg 13 [ 5 ]. Cobban, SocialIinterpretation of the French Revolution, pg 16 [ 6 ]. The French revolution and “revisionism” Claude Langlois, Timothy Tackett Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/494395 [ 7 ]. Echoes of the Marseillaise: two centuries look back on the French Revolution By Eric J. Hobsbawm p108