Interpretations of the French Revolution

  As discussed in the topic synopsis, we can (somewhat sloppily) place most interpretations of the French Revolution into two categories: the Marxist and the Revisionist interpretations. In most cases, a single framework or theory is unlikely to explain everything or completely evade contradiction; thus, an effective method of establishing viewpoints can be to determine the best elements of a given model and combine it with the best elements of other models (though, of course, advanced thinkers often create entirely new models). Hence, it is not our contention that you should rigidly adhere to the basic tenets of a single interpretation, but rather that you consider the arguments in depth and craft your own opinions.

The perspective you form regarding the causes of French Revolution should be critical to your position paper solutions and arguments at our conference, as preventing the carnage of another such event was of critical importance to delegates in Vienna, so further reading on this subject is encouraged. This blog post will outline the debate in more detail and provide guidance concerning further research.

We first begin with the Marxist interpretation. At the very least, Marxism was initially a critique of the capitalist structure in Europe in the late 18th and 19th century. For Karl Marx, European society was increasingly split between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the two great ‘classes’ that oppose each other. A ‘class’ is united by not only common interest, but also their status in capitalist society, dictated by whether or not they are in control of the means of production. Marx predicted that the internal contradictions of capitalism ‒ especially the insistence on growth ‒ would eventually destroy it, writing that “the development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriate products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces...are its own gravediggers.”

Historians and political scientists applied the Marxist framework to the French Revolution, and for decades it stood as academic orthodox. Poverty and famine were widespread in 1789 as France underwent the market revolution and saw the creation of a merchant class; the collapse of feudalism was at hand, and the resulting system gave rise to violence Marx’s model would have predicted.

While this remains a common narrative among laypeople, the academic community has turned against it in recent decades. A wide range of scholars, largely beginning in the 1970’s, began to reinterpret the events of 1789 and onwards, giving way to Revisionist frameworks. One prominent thinker was French historian François Furet, who published Interpreting the French Revolution in 1978; a central argument of Furet is that the immediate causes of the French Revolution, such as widespread poverty, cannot fully account for the events that transpired after the Bastille fell. Why were political rights and democracy initially enshrined? What caused the violence between revolutionary and counterrevolutionary forces? How does one explain international warfare begotten by France in 1792 within the Marxist framework?

Furet maintains that a key piece absent in the Marxist argument is the role of the philosophes; Enlightenment authors, he argues, were widely read in France and shaped the political climate of the nation such that radical change was possible once the ancien regime collapsed.

Such a refute of the Marxist interpretation need not be a refute of the Marxist model at large. Something crucial to understand is that the Industrial Revolution was not complete in 1789; it continued to transform Europe throughout the 19th century, further reshaping the continent long after Robespierre and Napoleon lost power. Thus, you should note differences between the French Revolutions and the uprisings which followed when crafting solutions.

To summarize, one might categorize the Marxist framework as a predominantly economic argument, whereas the Revisionist interpretation is heavily cultural. Here you might see parallels to contemporary discourse concerning democratic backsliding in the United States.

How you blend the ideas presented, and conjure new ideas, will heavily impact your performance at our conference. Consider your perspective with care; we look forward to hearing your arguments.