February 26, 2007
Socialism, Progressivism And The French Revolution: The Politics Of Class Envy: Part I
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. The French Revolution of 1789 produced a number of words, phrases, ideas and ideals that have survived to this day, not all of them good. There is, of course the national motto Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité but the original revolutionary slogan was "Lliberté, Égalité, Fraternité, Ou La Mort" (liberty, equality, brotherhood or death). In addition, we have such bon mots as "Let them eat cake," supposedly uttered by Marie Antoinette when told the people had no bread to eat. We have guillotine, "après nous, le déluge" (after us, the flood - or, when we are gone, things will be disasterous - supposedly uttered by Madame de Pompadour mistress of Louis XV by others as "après moi, le déluge" uttered by Louis XVI but meaning essentially the same thing.)
We have a number of good things to thank the French Revolution for even if they were latecomers to the democracy table and even though their revolution was far bloodier than ours (some 18,000 were executed/killed during the reign of terror). The French however, like they seem to do as a culture often mucked things up and didn't learn to get it right at all. I am, admittedly, in general, a francophobe though there are individual Frech folk I admire a great deal. For example, while we got rid of a king and struggled to keep our democracy alive, the French got rid of a king, floundered through the reign of terror, struggled with the idea of a republic, placed Napolian on the throne, went back to a republic and on, and on, and on. We on the other hand, went through a very tragic civil war, but managed in the most part to keep our act together. Today, France is a fourth rate democracy tut tutting over things it cannot control or influence but still bridled with delusions of grandeur. We on the other hand are the world's super power and believe me, it ain't easy.
Having blathered all of the above, perhaps the reason that the ideals of the French Revolution were never realized were because essentially they were fomented on "class envy." There were some extremely heavy excesses by the French Monarchy for decades, the Roman Catholic Church was the largest landowner in France, the sans-culotte (literally, those without knee britches or the poor in Paris during the French Revolution) had no power, indeed, very often had nothing but the ability to draw breath and scrounge a living as best they could.
To this mix, came the very small, but vocal and vibrant middle class, who, along with some revolutionary upper class folks ushered in the "Reign of Terror" in which I have noted that some 18,000 souls lost their lives. Their "crime?" Being rich seems to have been the main complaint. Being "anti-revolutionary" was another, sometimes, even an accusation was sufficient for the sans-culotte to mob the victim and pummel them to death.
In 1789 the Estates General (consisting of the Clergy, the Nobility and the Middle Class and Peasants) couldn't get their act together and, the Third Estate (the middle class and the peasants) feared that the royals would attempt a gerrymandering and freeze them out. The folk of the third then formed The Communes (Commons) and one month later, frustrated and angry that Louis XVI banashed the reformist minister Necker, they stormed the Bastille and the Revolution was underway.
Fueled by a growing and bitter hatred of the wealthy, the "social" constructs behind "Lliberté, Égalité, Fraternité" were formed and the war against wealth has been going on ever since.
Today, we see these same ideals in the socialistic/progressivistic left who believe in confiscating wealth via taxes, handouts to the poor, unearned and other governmental actions designed, like the authors of the French Revolution, to inspire that envy. More in the next few days in Part II
Posted by GM Roper at February 26, 2007 10:32 PM | TrackBackYou're quite right. Well, not "right" but let's just say that you are correct. When the disparity between the richest and poorest reaches a certain level then conditions are certainly ripe for a revolution. You'd think it'd be a lesson everyone would have learned from by now.
Posted by e. nonee moose at February 27, 2007 07:20 AM
What's the word for when someone says give me your money or I'll kill you? Is it "revolution" or "robbery?"
Anyway, it seems that many are counting the money of other people rather than their own money. They would be happier to be less prosperous as long as the wealth gap was closed. There's a word for that, too--stupid.
Posted by Woody at February 27, 2007 08:05 AM
A rising tide lifts *all* boats.
Posted by e. nonee moose at February 27, 2007 10:33 AM
"You'd think it'd be a lesson everyone would have learned from by now."
So are you saying, Moose, that we need to keep people from getting too rich? What is too rich? Or is it okay if the "rich" person successfully advocates for all those below them to share equally while they hide their money off-shore? Because that's exactly what we see day in and day out.
What's wrong with people going for all they can? Reaching their highest potential? Nothing! What IS the problem is the mindset of wealth-envy and the tools people use to foment it. That's what GM's saying.
Am I jealous of my rich neighbor? Well yeah, I'll admit I *am* a bit jealous. But enough so that I would use the power of government to demand he give me or someone else some of his money? Heck no.
Helping other boats rise is noble and virtuous, but it should never be forced. Charity is a moral individual issue. Not a political or governmental one.
Posted by Oyster at February 27, 2007 11:48 AM
So are you saying, Moose, that we need to keep people from getting too rich?
And I repeat myself... A rising tide lifts ALL boats.
Posted by e. nonee moose at February 27, 2007 12:30 PM
"When the disparity between the richest and poorest reaches a certain level then conditions are certainly ripe for a revolution."
I won't deny that this happens, but your second sentence:
"You'd think it'd be a lesson everyone would have learned from by now,"
implies that something should/could be done about it.
I agree on your second comment entry. It's just sort of contradicts your first. Not to mention many of your comments here.
Posted by Oyster at February 27, 2007 12:55 PM
I'm all for taking from the rich and giving to the poor as long as the last names of the rich are Kerry, Kennedy and Gore.
The Dems use the socialist message to buy votes but the gap between the poor and rich increased throughout the Clinton administration. It's just a political ploy on the Dems part. But the societial damage this ploy does by teaching people to expect something for nothing is quite serious.
Posted by DADvocate at February 27, 2007 01:26 PM
I'm all for taking from the rich and giving to the poor as long as the last names of the rich are Kerry, Kennedy and Gore.
You made a rhyme!!! You're a poet but don't know it!!!
Posted by e. nonee moose at February 27, 2007 01:34 PM
I agree on your second comment entry. It's just sort of contradicts your first.
Maybe what I'm implying is that what most folks call a 'rising tide' isn't exactly that. ALL of the boats aren't being lifted.
Posted by e. nonee moose at February 27, 2007 01:36 PM
A fair point, moose. (Look, I usually kick moose, but when he's got a point you need to acknowledge it, alright?) The best argument in favor of capitalism is that it lifts all boats. If (when - not Albania, China, Russia) it doesn't do that then there is nothing special about it. Without rule of law, our economic system doesn't have much over socialism, mercantilism, tribalism, or nepotism.
Socialism sounds like the best alternative, and if it worked, I'd be in favor of it. The fact that it doesn't work is the problem.
Historians usually associate the French and American revolutions because they were close in time. But philosophically, it is closer to the Russian Revolution. Fervor. Sincerity. Hope. Idealism. Failure.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 27, 2007 07:36 PM
I see the same kind socialism coming out of the Democrat AND Republican parties. So, let's dump them BOTH!
I have good news of great joy to give to you!
A new political party is being offered to the tens of millions of Americans who feel that both the Republican party and the Democrat party have NOT led them to achieve what they really want our government to do for them.
We want our borders secured and our immigration laws ENFORCED NOW! We want tax reform-and we want it ASAP! We want much more efficient, innovative and effective SMALLER government that gives us more bang for our hard-earned buck. We want Senate rules that currently do not allow an up or down vote for all executive appointment to the federal judiciary changed to allow a constitutional up or down vote. We want our second amendment right to keep and BEAR arms VIGILANTLY protected! We believe America’s best and brightest days are YET to come! We yearn for REAL change that PRODUCES real results that truly satisfies our good desires for our families, America’s future and our posterity. And, we want it all RIGHT NOW!
The new party is called the ‘New Republican Party’ and can be further studied at my website. This party is what we, and millions of others like us, have all been searching for…but it has never existed before…until NOW!
Posted by Denny at February 28, 2007 05:41 AM
So you're like Libertarians except you don't want to legalize drugs?
Posted by e. nonee moose at February 28, 2007 06:34 AM
If someone wants his boat to rise with the tide, then he has to do a little work first by putting his boat in the water.
Posted by Woody at February 28, 2007 03:37 PM
Give a big round of applause for the comedic stylings of WOOOOOODY!!!
Meanwhile, shed a tear for the poor child if you possibly can and try to figure where he fits into the scheme of things when it comes to class warfare.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html
Posted by e. nonee moose at February 28, 2007 03:58 PM
"The French however, like they seem to do as a culture often mucked things up and didn't learn to get it right at all."
Have you been to France, GM de Tocqueville? Is this an informed opinion of French culture or one primarily formed in hallowed halls of right wing blogosphere? Any favorite books on French history?
Posted by Mavis Beacon at February 28, 2007 04:01 PM
Warnie Lewis's military history of France is hard to find, but excellent.
Jacques Barzun's "From Dawn to Decadence" is a European overview, but includes much French history.
People who have only read about a culture might well be misled, but that does not mean that all they know is of little value. Roper has a pretty good knowledge of German culture from personal experience. That should count for something.
As to the boy dying from dental bacteria in the link, it would be easy to jump to pat solutions. Do you know of a country where deaths due to insufficient medical care don't happen, moose?
Don't try Sweden, BTW.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 28, 2007 04:50 PM
