Explanation: “We should bring back the guillotine” or similar is a common internet quip in response to billionaires doing billionaire things, when in reality the guillotine was invented to provide equal and humane deaths to people of all classes, and from there it was always a tool of the state rather than the people. Not the best euphemism for “we should depose the bourgeoisie.” In fact plenty of Revolutionary justice folks were themselves offed by the guillotine during the Terror.
It was also pretty symbolically used to chop the head off of dear old Louis XVI and his wife (the royals), and end the Royal order in France. (Not that what came after was that much better, but the symbolism stands more if u look at it that way).
That’s kinda fair, but really the royals thing was more kicking a guy while he’s down and didn’t have much to do with the bourgeoisie, so I still think the connection is weak.
AFAIK the “bourgeoisie” was mostly a phenomenon of the XIX and XX centuries, I don’t think it would be much relevant to the French Revolution, like it isn’t today.
(Although there were parallels then like there are today)The French revolution was precisely the revolution of the bourgeoisie (more precisely the third estate driven by them; peasants were also a part of the third estate) against the first (clergy) and second estate (nobility).
Or rather the revolution of capital, to free its hands from the restrictions of the ancien régime (and feudalism in general).
The French revolution was precisely the revolution of the bourgeoisie (more precisely the third estate driven by them; peasants were also a part of the third estate) against the first (clergy) and second estate (nobility).
Yeah that’s the popular characterization, but it doesn’t really track. The spark of the French Revolution was the French treasury going bankrupt, then the aristocracy “revolted” against Louis XVI in the form of throwing the book at him and telling him to call the Estates General, which he did when he went from bankrupt to really bankrupt. Then we reach the “revolution” of capital, which starts with the calling of the Estates General and ends with the founding of the National Assembly less than two months later. That’s it, now feudalism is out, bourgeoisie democracy is in; from that point on France was governed by an all-powerful unicameral legislature (with the method of election to the benefit of capital) all the way until the inauguration of the Directory.
Yeah that’s the popular characterization, but it doesn’t really track.
I wrote my comment through a rudimentary lens of historical materialism: looking at the material basis and class dynamics from a macro perspective; it describes general trends instead of specifics.
I mean, if we’re talking historical materialism then the transfer of political power from the aristocracy and clergy to the bourgeoisie definitely happened; my point is that this transfer ended so fast and faced so little resistance that it can hardly be used to characterize the French Revolution as a whole. Most of the French Revolution was what happened in the aftermath of this transfer, is what I’m trying to say.
Ah, good point! My tired brain took a while getting it…
Most of the French Revolution was what happened in the aftermath of this transfer
Could the French revolution be characterised as the final “finish” of said transfer, then?
Also I’m not that deep into the matter TBH, my current approach to (modern (that’s where my interest really begins)) history is more of a “I know the most relevant things from the POV of my rudimentary understanding of historical materialism (and from a more “generic” one) from broad chunks of approximate timeperiods”.
I don’t really have the mental capacity or rather head space for proper study unfortunately :/
Nope. There were plenty of bourgeoisie in late 18th century France. I mean hell, you even had proto-socialists then (that’s the Enrages). The “industrial” part of industrial capitalism wasn’t a thing yet, but bankers, speculators and filthy rich merchants were very much a thing.
Ohh, so you are high as balls. That tracks.
I’d argue that it was involved in the class war between the ruling feudalist classes and the bourgeoisie; class struggle/war is a tale far older than capitalism or feudalism.
That would’ve made it the most bloodless war in history then. Basically all aristocratic authority ceased to matter the moment the Estates General asserted itself as the National Assembly, and the abolition of feudalism in France happened in a night in the Assembly, with sometimes enthusiastic noble support. This understanding of the French Revolution is based more on myth than reality.
Seems like your logic is technically flawed, though.
Guillotine memes are fun but here’s an interesting read https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too
Why give the bourgeois all the ceremony the nobility got if a good ol’ firin’ squad will do? /j
