Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Radical, Revolutionary, Both, or Neither?

One of the major ideas fueling the French Revolution was classical liberalism. Focused on two major principles, liberty and equality, liberalism called for representative government as opposed to autocratic monarchy, equality before the law as opposed to legally separate classes, and specific individual freedoms including of the press, of speech, of assembly, and from arbitrary arrest. It consisted of free enterprise and a self-regulating market as put forth by Adam Smith, and called for a lot of power to be rested in the hands of the people. The ideas (and spirit) set forth by liberalism stuck around long after the revolutionary era, and provided the groundwork for many later European revolutionary and radical movements, and for modern day Republicanism. 

Liberalism was radical in the sense that it opposed the long-standing construct of an autocratic monarch and an obeying, classified people. It became revolutionary when it was put to action. 



Nationalism was an idea cultivated in the years of and following the Napoleonic Era. Early advocates of the "national idea" sought to turn cultural unity - this idea that each people had its own genius and self-evident unity based on common language, history, and territory - into a political reality. Nationalism often manifested among the people in the "we-they" outlook. Citizens of a nation would refer to themselves as a "we," and pit themselves against the general "they," meaning another specific nation or other nations. The creation of common loyalties and common enemies was one of the greatest catalysts for nationalism.

Early nationalism was ambiguous. It was mainly liberal and democratic in motivation and in nature, but it lead to ideas of national superiority and national mission that could unite a nation and lead to aggression and conflict. 

Nationalism was not very "radical" in the sense that it was not outlandish or reformative. It did, however, revolutionize society when it was put to proper use. The idea of nationalism could bind nations, creating common language, common culture, and common enemies and loyalties. Binding a nation in this sense could lead not only to internalized successes (for example, a flourishing economy and a sense of national pride) but also to overseas successes, as nationalists would fight at all costs to defend their nation. 

Metternich argued strictly against liberalism and nationalism, believing their combination could lead to chaos and anarchy. Critics of nationalism, then and and in the modern world, often argued similarly, believing that nationalism could lead to a population blindly following an unqualified leader or its own fervent passion for the nation.


Socialism was the most radical idea of the era. Flawless in theory yet almost impossible to execute, socialism grew as a reaction to liberalism and to laissez-faire capitalism. It saw the need to reorganize society and establish a sense of community among a population, and argued for economic planning in order to avoid the destructive competition of a free market. Early French socialists also advocated for economic equality, provision for the poor, and government-regulated property ownership.

French utopian socialists included Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Louis Blanc, who believed respectively that social organization, the abolition of marriage, and government-guaranteed employment would lead to a more perfect, equal, and peaceful society.

Marx was less idealistic than the French utopians, but many of his socialist ideas were similar. He most notably hated the separation of the bourgeoise (those who own property and profit from the work of the 'doers') and the proletariat (the modern working class). He believed that the bourgeoise were idle, feeding off the labor of and stealing wages from the working class. Marx synthesized French utopian socialism with German philosophy and English classical economics. He and Friedrich Engels' The Communist Manifesto became the bible of socialism, and Marxism is hugely referred to and debated in modern politics.










No comments:

Post a Comment