The French Revolution was the fundamental event of European history in the eighteenth century. There are two main interpretations of its causes and consequences. These are firstly, the Classic or Marxist interpretation and secondly, the Revisionist interpretation. These two interpretations differ substantially to each other in explaining the origins of the Revolution.
The Classic interpretation of the Revolution is a view that was held by many historians for much of the twentieth century. These notably included French historians Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul. They viewed the Revolution in socioeconomic terms. This concept asserts that the Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, driven by class conflict, which swept away the political structures of feudalism and cleared the way for the development of capitalism. This viewpoint maintains that “The Revolution is the culmination of a long social evolution, itself economically driven. It marks a turning point in economic history, too: the transition from feudalism to capitalism.”
There is a clear distension between classes in this interpretation and in particular the bourgeois and the nobility are in definite conflict. This is an essential element to this opinion because they see the Revolution as a conflict between capitalism and feudalism, which are represented by the bourgeoisie and nobility classes. The cause of the social revolution was that the bourgeoisie classes were becoming increasingly wealthy because of the growth of industry, commerce and capitalism, yet were unable to match this economic dominance with social and political power. “Marx himself had written little directly on the Revolution, but it was easy enough to fit a movement which had begun with an attack on nobles and feudalism into a theory of history that emphasized class struggle and the conflict between capitalism and feudalism. The French revolution from this viewpoint was the key moment in modern history, when the capitalist bourgeoisie overthrew the old feudal nobility. The fundamental questions about it were therefore economic and social.” Historians like Lefebvre and Soboul viewed the revolutionaries as the people who freed France from the economic shackles of the past and made France a safe place for capitalism.
The Term Paper on Economic Systems 3
Socialism Socialism is an economic system where all the economic decisions are made by the government or a central authority. There will be no private property rights since the government officially owns all resources. It is also known as a command economy or a planned system. Socialist economics refers to the economic theories, practices, and norms of hypothetical and existing socialist economic ...
The Revisionist interpretation on the Revolution began in the nineteen fifties, with its first advocator being English historian, Alfred Cobban. This point of view sought to challenge the long held views of the Revolution held in Marxist circles. It questioned the Classic interpretation and aimed to destroy many of the opinions held. Cobban said that his battle is “with the hopelessly inadequate sociological terminology and theories inherited from the early nineteenth century and long since elevated to the point of unchallengeable dogma.”
Revisionists like Cobban and later ones such as Francois Furet believed that the French Revolution did little to change French society. The main aspect of the classical take on the Revolution that revisionists looked to overthrow, was the idea that it was a struggle between the classes. In particular they contest the notion that the bourgeois and the nobility were in conflict and that they were in fact part of the same ruling elite. “By any reasonable definition of class, a generation’s research has shown that the nobility and the bourgeoisie before 1789(and indeed afterwards too) were part of a single elite rather than two conflicting and naturally antagonistic ones. Nobles and bourgeois shared the same wealth patterns, the same social aspirations, the same education values, the same attitude to the lower orders.” Revisionists also claim that a lot of the bourgeoisie classes held land in the same feudal way that the nobility did, and that the nobility at the time were increasingly getting involved in capitalism. These opinions would clearly suggest that these two classes were not in clear opposition to each other. It also dismantles the Marxist held view that the Revolution was a clear conflict between capitalism and feudalism because it shows that the two classes were actively involved in both of these two activities and therefore would have been in conflict with themselves.
The Essay on Dickens’ Views on the French Revolution
The French Revolution Revolutions have occurred since the first oppressed people got fed up with a tyrannical leader. It has been the cry of the downtrodden since the beginning of time. Revolution is a word that symbolizes hope for a better future. It can be a dangerous thing because if not successful life for the common people might get worse than it originally was. Even if successful the new ...
Revisionists offer up an alternative reason for the Revolution, which instead of claiming a conflict between the bourgeoisie and the nobility, actually claims that at its heart the reason was political and that it existed within the social class. “The revisionist response has been that this was a conflict within a class rather than between classes, and that it arose not from any long-perceived conflict of interests but from a specific political situation compounded of accidents, miscalculations, and misunderstandings.” The Revolution was caused by a political crisis which concluded in a political vacuum and the breakdown of the state. William Doyle claims that the origins of this political crisis “lay in the excessive cost of an overambitious foreign policy.”
Another classic aspect which the revisionists tackle is the idea that the revolutionaries freed the French from the economic shackles of the past and made the country free to practice capitalism. Revisionists like Cobban cite many examples of the intense conservatism of the revolutionaries. He contends that “the victory of the Revolution contributed much to the economic backwardness of France in the following century.” In his book ‘Interpreting the French Revolution’, Francois Furet contends that the view that the revolutionaries radically changed the way France operated both economically and socially was false and that they did not drastically break away from the past. “far from being the agents of a radical break with the past, the revolutionaries in fact put the finishing touches to the centralised bureaucratic State began by the Kings of France.”
The Essay on Turning Points Neolithic Revolution French Revolution And The Industrial Revolution
Political, social, and economic conditions have often led to revolutions that have changed the course of history for nations and peoples. These revolutions had such a significant impact that they can fittingly be labeled turning points. Two of these turning points, the Neolithic and French Revolutions, have drastically altered the world today. During the Paleolithic Period, which lasted from the ...
When discussing these two interpretations of the French Revolution it is difficult to gauge which is the more accurate. A common reaction to revisionist history as a whole, is the assume the views held have more sway because they benefit from having the advantage of challenging already conceived notions and tearing them down. Is it fair to assume that given new perspectives, derived over the benefit of time, these revisionists have gained a more definite answer to the causes of the French Revolution? It is a tough question to answer. One thing that can be contended is that a person’s position on the Revolution can show what ideological and political views this person himself processes. There is a clear line in the sand these days when discussing the French Revolution, and you are on one side or the other. “One’s stance on the Revolution reveals much about one’s deepest ideological and political convictions”
One thing which is fair to assume is that the classic side and the revisionist side of this argument will not come to any sort of compromise in the views they hold on the Revolution. There is an interesting analogy to be made between the two interpretations, but in order to make it one must assume that the classic view of the Revolution is true. In a sense the differing views held by these two sides are comparable to the class struggle in the French Revolution. You could say that the Marxist view held today is comparable to the French nobility before the Revolution, insomuch that their view on the Revolution was held uncontested and without opposition for such a long period of time. Meanwhile the revisionists can be compared to the bourgeoisie. They sought a revolution in the way we thought about the Revolution and sought radical change to how the historical establishment viewed it. The start of this revisionist revolution started, not in 1789, but in 1954, with Alfred Cobban’s lecture ‘The Myth of the French Revolution’. From a revisionist point of view, the classic interpretation on the French Revolution has been falling apart over the last sixty years, much like the fall of Feudalism in late eighteenth century France.
The Essay on British Vs French Views On Native Americans
As the Europeans integrated into North America, they also invaded the Native American's territory. In doing this, some Europeans were arrogant and pompous, but others became friendly with them. Both the French and the British had interactions with the Native Americans. These included trading, being allies, and even going as far as intermarrying. At first, both societies got along with the Natives. ...
Bibliography
Cobban, Alfred, The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution, London Cambridge U.P. 1964.
Doyle, William, Origins of the French Revolution, Oxford : Oxford U.P., 1980.
Doyle, William, Reflections on the Classic Interpretation of the French Revolution, French Historical Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Autumn, 1990), pp. 743-748.
Ellis, Geoffrey, The ‘Marxist Interpretation’ of the French Revolution, The English Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 367 (Apr., 1978), pp. 353-376.
Furet, Francois, Interpreting the French Revolution, Cambridge, U.P., 1981.
Kates, Gary, The French Revolution : recent debates and new controversies, London ; New York : Routledge, 1998.
Lyons, Martyn, Napoleon Bonaparte and the legacy of the French Revolution, Basingstoke : Macmillan, 1994.
Salvemini, Gaetano, The French Revolution 1788-1792, Milan, Credito Italiano, 1963.
Sutherland, D.M.G., France 1789-1815 : revolution and counterrevolution, London, Fontana, 1985.
Vovelle, Michel; Tackett, Timothy; Tuttle, Elisabeth, Reflections on the Revisionist Interpretation of the French Revolution, French Historical Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Autumn, 1990), pp. 749-755.
