The French, found a very good solution to all of that ~230 years ago...
the true lesson imho is that any positive project for the future will need to reject iconoclasm, and lean into incrementalism. preserve the good, prune the bad.
The 'terror' is 'famous' only because of the ~300 years long propaganda of their enemy, the English establishment - the aristocratic establishment that hates anyone or anything that threatens the aristocracy with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. Otherwise, what is called 'the terror' accounts for ~3000 people, and most of them in Paris. And it consists of aristocrats, their surrogates, their servants who aided them with their conspiring with their foreign relatives to come to France and massacre their own people so that they wouldnt lose their privileges and the 'plebs' would 'know their place'.
Conspiring against your own country in wartime in that manner still carries the death penalty even today. Even in the most democratic countries.
> the french revolutionary program traded aristocratic rights for bureaucratic corruption
Corruption existed in all eras and all societies in human history. 'Bureaucrats being corrupt' at or after one point does not invalidate a system. That system worked spectacularly well when it was first instituted, literally reforming the entire continent by removing aristocrats from power and appointing non-nobility to those positions on a meritocratic basis. It worked so well that even after the aristocrats were able to destroy the Napoleonic remnants of the revolution, they kept that 'bureaucratic' system. If it became corrupt, you can tie it to the influence of the aristocrats - not the revolution.
...
No, the French did find the solution to it - the French Revolution is the unique event in human history that destroyed the elitist, aristocratic stranglehold of the minority on the society by invalidating all the historic traditions and trappings that trace back to the Agricultural Revolution and all the norms that those enforced on the people. And it set the standards for our actual modern society. It has basically created the blueprint of how we live today.
> It has basically created the blueprint of how we live today.
The same case can be made for the american revolution, which was earlier, and which legacy is longer lasting.
But yeah, point taken. Any book recommendations on the topic?
Indeed - after being on the Internet for a while, I learned that what is taught on this topic in the Anglosphere and the rest of the world !greatly! differ. In high school curriculum, we were taught what the French Revolution did, what were its principles and how it related to our current society. What is incessantly drummed up in the Anglosaxon literature as 'the terror' was just mentioned as a part of the turmoil that was the revolution and the ensuing war. But of course, its no surprise how then-existing Anglosaxon establishment and its modern contunity hated 'the terror so much':
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/989759-there-were-two-reign...
Because 'the terror' was directed against the aristocracy. It did not matter whether hundreds of thousands of French died during the famines in which their aristocrats starved them for maximum profit to keep their luxurious lifestyle. It matters that ~3000 aristocrats and upper class were executed by those very peasants.
> The same case can be made for the american revolution, which was earlier, and which legacy is longer lasting
That is also a proposition of the Anglosaxon literature, and there is a quite different view of it outside that literature for that topic as well:
Whereas the French Revolution totally did away with all the existing political and social norms and brought an egalitarian and meritocratic format into politics and the society, the American Revolution was more a rebellion in which the elite of the colonies broke away from their motherland in a move to protect their privileges and position by incorporating some of the Age of Enlightenment principles. We see total commoners get into positions of power at the end of the French Revolution, whereas the American Revolution (or rather, rebellion) does not disturb the existing power structure in the colonies aside from ousting the parts of the elite who were royalists. There was also large scale land appropriation and land redistribution done at the end of the rebellion.
That is extremely important - because that is the reason why the leaders of the rebellion created an anti-democratic political structure: The American founding fathers thought that this kind of land redistribution could easily target themselves (and there were voices demanding it), and they wanted to protect their holdings and power. Which is why de facto architect of the American constitution, John Adams, openly and contradictorily advocated that the government should protect the society from 'the tyranny of the majority'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
The tyranny being democratically voted and enforced land redistribution, obviously. American founding fathers were rather blunt about it in their memoirs, letters and private communication. Some did openly politick against it as well.
This is the reason for the existence of the electoral college, the senate, and the 'checks and balances' in the American system - all of those were devised as ways to enable overriding or controlling the democratic majority so that they wouldnt come with pesky land redistribution schemes. So at the end of the 'revolution', we see the exact American elite occupying the same positions of power and privilege, but with the losing segments of the elite who sided with the crown removed. The actual aristocrats who sided with the rebellion kept their possesions after the rebellion, with the exception that their nobility titles not having a legal basis anymore. Which did not matter since it was the possessions that made the title.
On top of that, the Age of Enlightenment ideals were not fully materialized into their radical forms at that point. So what the nascent American republic did was to mostly copy the earlier Dutch Republic, the oligarchic trade/merchant republic that was seen as the pinnacle of systems at the time. The Dutch Republic had had copied its systems and format from the Venetian Republic in turn. So even from the start, the US was set up as an oligarchy and it shows even today. So if the US looks like a merchant oligarchy in which the merchants, traders and businessmen dominate the entire society, its not a happenstance - it was made to be that way.
Additionally, the nascent republic maintained the medieval feudal common law system that it inherited from Great Britain, which created the hodgepodge of legal mess that exists in the US when the holes of the medieval common law were plastered over with the civil law that originated from the French Revolution later. Its not so surprising that they kept common law since the colonists, including the American founding fathers did not want to break away from Britain at the start and for a long time after that - their demands were representation and/or abolition of the new taxes and being left alone like how it was in the earlier centuries. It took a lot of work by a few founding fathers to agitate for independence and a republic. (reading about Thomas Paine and his activities immediately before and after the rebellion could give some perspective)
So unfortunately, contrary to what is heavily advocated in the Anglosaxon (or rather, mostly American in this case) literature, the American revolution/rebellion was not the paradigm-shattering event that shaped the modern society - it was at most a step in the process, which definitely helped the leaders of the French Revolution to crystallize their ideas after seeing how the incumbent elite was able to protect their power during the process of the American rebellion. Leading to the crystal clear egalitarianism and absolute abolitionism of privileges seen in the Revolution later.
At this point we must note that the entire world uses civil law, a product of the French Revolution, whereas only a few countries (like the UK) and a few small islands still use the common law. Even the US has a mixed common law + civil law environment. Merely the major difference in between these tells how different these two events were and why the French Revolution is the event that shaped modern society:
In common law, the judges still act as the stand-in for the local feudal sovereign with the power to 'interpret' the law and override it with those interpretations, leading to 'precedents' that end up becoming de facto laws themselves.
Whereas in civil law, the judge is just the speaker of the democratic parliament that has written any given law, tasked with communicating and precisely implementing the pre-written law with literally no interpretation. Even in cases in which the existing law does not cover something in the exact manner, the judge is responsible with falling back to a broader law that does cover that specific thing and implementing its articles in an exact manner - he or she can not 'interpret' any law or set any 'precedents'. All the power lies in the people who make the law, and those who implement the law are just their representatives.
...
Of course, these are quite large topics with a lot of reading buried in them, so its a bit difficult to recommend stuff that could bring a different perspective - especially from the Anglosaxon literature. But reading Howard Zinn's A people's history of the world is one shortcut - it would touch a lot of similar subjects as well.
However still, its not difficult to find some articles that were compiled on the matter:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2141520.pdf
https://www.stratford.org/uploaded/faculty/jjordan/Viewpoint...
Of the cuff, the common vs civil law issue seems more of a formal difference, rather than a difference in outcome. Interpretation of common laws changes over time as well. And what republic are the french on now? Fifth, sixth? I lost count somewhere in my own lifetime. Laws that need rewriting every generation or so or poor laws.
Anyways, appreciate the in-depth response and sources!
Nope. Its fundamental. Take what happened during the BLM protests: A NY court suspended habeas corpus, the basis of all rights under common law. At that point, the authorities, including the police, could do whatever they wanted to anyone they wanted. It was reinstituted only after a higher NY court overruled it. If the higher court decided that the emergency warranted the suspension, ALL rights in NY would have been gone for the duration. Same goes for the US in general. If in the future, there is a major emergency that can 'justify' the suspension of habeas corpus and the supreme court lets it stay, all rights will be gone for whatever duration decided. In common law, the judges play the role of the sovereign monarch who owns all rights and gives them out as he sees fit. So it can 'reinterpret' everything at any given time and everyone is at the mercy of it.
Now take civil law: No such thing can happen. What rights the citizens, residents and even refugees have are written in concrete in the law, including what rights can be kept and what rights are suspended even in emergencies including global catastrophes, and they can never be taken back by anybody. The only one who can give or take back laws is the society itself, ie the people, they do that through democratic voting and proportional representation, and nothing and nobody can overrule them. Sovereignty belongs to the people.
> And what republic are the french on now? Fifth, sixth?
The majority of the French republics were destroyed by external sources that were trying to eradicate the remnants of the French revolution. Mostly backed by (then) 'the leader of the free world', Britain. We can also include World War II in this, since Britain was trying to use Germany as an attack dog against the Soviets and therefore propping up in any way they could, especially diplomatically. (including preventing an Europe-wide attempt of an anti-Nazi alliance that could totally prevent Ww2).
Outside those cases, the people democratically changing their constitution and calling it a new 'republic' does not really make it a new republic. Its still a republic, with a changed constition. The power still resides in the people and they decide how the 'new' republic will be. There is nothing outside the revolutionary principles there.
Though, one can easily say that the latest republic was also prompted by an external intervention - namely the CIA coup attempt to depose de Gaul to prevent the French from giving independence to Algeria.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/20/jfk-assassination-plot-mirr...
This is a very hairy affair, by the way - CIA organizing a coup in France using the military in lieu of JFK's policies and opposition, Parisians mobilizing and setting up barricades across Paris to protect the president, JFK being powerless to stop the CIA and leaking info and updates to the French via diplomatic channels to help against the coup...
Funny to see this called out, my father is a huge francophile and I remember him going on about this when I was a kid (tbf - he sees CIA coups everywhere in the 60s, murder of jfk, murder of lumumba, ...).
Considering how that is the whole business of CIA (aside from drug running to finance those and the paramilitaries, guerillas and islamists they fund), he is not far off. Solely the coups in South America would already flood the list, Africa would need a few more pages. Then there are coups in the Middle East etc. Incidentally, the later Iranian Islamic revolution is the result of the 1953 coup that CIA helped organize in Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
They even hired the most famous mobsters in Tehran to help with the coup. So I guess the tendency of the CIA to choose the worst type of people to work with did not originate in the 1960s, and instead it was there when it was founded...
...
The murder of JFK is very specific, btw - its very plausible that CIA did it (Dulles) because JFK has sabotaged two CIA projects - the Bay of Pigs push and then the French coup. And that Dulles was a nasty, nasty, nasty man...
Denying the existence of The Terror is just weird. It was condemned at the time by fellow Jacobins like Danton/Desmoulins who were then executed themselves as the revolution devoured it's own. Robespierre had lost his mind by this point.
It isn't called la Terreur because of English propaganda but because the revolutionaries openly discussed the concept and deliberate use of terror in the period. You can quibble about what they meant by it and whether or not terror was an official policy or just the reality, but that is where name arises. Robespierre: "The basis of popular government in time of revolution is both virtue and terror".
You are way off on the death toll. The official figures are 17k executed (2-3k in Paris) and 10k died in prison awaiting trial. Historians put the total figure at 40-50k because of there were also summary executions outside the official figures.
Even if I was, why would being so anti-French like the English establishment and its followers are be ok, but not being 'anti-English'.
> spreading disinformation
You are not the arbiter of truth. Neither the establishment that you are defending. The one that was called the 'perfidious albion' for 400~ years by now.
This is the first time I see someone talking about 'misinformation' regarding referenced historical material. It comes across extremely funny. Demonstrates how big the gap is in between how the Angloamerican world sees itself and the world and the rest of the world does.
> Denying the existence of The Terror is just weird. It was condemned at the time by fellow Jacobins like Danton/Desmoulins who were then executed themselves as the revolution devoured it's own. Robespierre had lost his mind by this point.
Aside from the charged emotional wordage used in your paragraph giving away the level of ire and propaganda levied against those who you consider to be your 'historic enemy' in line with your establishment's propaganda, nobody denies the existence of executions. ~3000 people were tried and executed in Paris.
What is 'denied' is the delirious, emotionally charged exaggeration that comes from the establishment you stan for - just like your emotional approach, that establishment has portrayed this event as if millions of ordinary French were wrongfully killed. With the judge, jury and executioner of that sentence being the English establishment, the traitorous aristocrats who escaped to England, and those who finally accomplished in destroying the French Revolution. Its like asking Dick Cheney to describe the Iraq War...
> It isn't called la Terreur because of English propaganda but because the revolutionaries openly discussed the concept and deliberate use of terror in the period. You can quibble about what they meant by it and whether or not terror was an official policy or just the reality, but that is where name arises. Robespierre: "The basis of popular government in time of revolution is both virtue and terror".
The word 'terror' had different meanings 300 years ago. Whereas it has been made into something quite different from the usage in the period in the following centuries. Maybe they should have used the word 'fear of god' instead of the more rational-sounding 'terror'. Like how it is in the Anglosaxon literature. Then it would be all good and well.
Regardless of the propaganda subversion of a term from a different language by a hostile establishment, the incident is what it is - the execution of ~3000 people, mostly the aristocrats and their surrogates for conspiracies against their own people.
> The official figures are 17k executed (2-3k in Paris) and 10k died in prison awaiting trial.
The Anglosaxon 'Terror' propaganda is about the executions in Paris. Its about 'blood flowing in the streets'. Guillotines. Not the events that transpired elsewhere in France, during the wars, or in the killings of the revolutionaries by the French aristocrats or the foreign armies that they have called in to murder their own people.
It is very likely that even more people died from both sides in the events during and after the revolution. But the English propaganda is not about that. Its about 'blood flowed in the streets'. Emotional manipulation to demonize. Because otherwise different sides in a civil war executing collaborators of the other faction in court martials across the countryside does not make the same emotional manipulation effect. Even more so because the English history is chock full of such incidents, and the accusation would turn against the propagandists themselves - hence, 'blood flowed in the streets - guillotines!!!'.
...
There is absolutely no difference between how the French Revolution was demonized in this manner through emotional propaganda and how other targets of the English establishment were demonized before and later. All the way from starting the demonization of the Spanish by the Elizabethans to the demonization of Europe during the Brexit process.
Here is an example of the actual terror that existed back in that time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
That doesnt count, of course. It was not directed against the aristocrats, but commoners. Who are not 'real people'.
...
Yes, how the French Revolution is viewed outside the Anglosphere and inside the Anglosphere is !starkly! different. For your demographic, this is a vicious football matchup in which you must vilify and demean your opponent even if the arguments are based on lies for emotional manipulation by totally invalidating even the principles that built our modern society by originating from that revolution. For the rest of the world, its one of the most important events in history of the world. An event that permanently destroyed the myth of the god-given rights of the aristocrats to rule, and freed the world from their yoke.