The Follies of the Revolutionaries
Writing by abuhatem on Tuesday, 3 of June , 2008 at 12:19 am
Over at The Monarchist blog which I found one day browsing Taki’s Mag I found this very good blog entry describing the political ideology of “the revolutionary.” Being that one of the recurring themes of this blog is that the very definition of a traditionalist conservative entails being a counter-revolutionary, it is interesting to see his take:
The second most perverted mindset across the psychological spectrum of politics and governance is that of the revolutionary. It is the mind of the revolutionary and his fanatical need to correct some perceived injustice, even if it means murder on a large scale to achieve his political ends, that yields the next most repressive form of government.
Mindset: “Personal trauma has caused an abnormal personality disorder in me. I spend most of my waking hours focusing my hatred and anger from this past event upon a perceived ‘political’ enemy and wrapping my uncivil criminal and violent agenda in a sanitising cloak of ‘a people’s political cause’. The immediate result of my revolution ranges from social deconstruction and balkanisation to anarchy and genocide. The governments I may form rely on fear, intimidation and tyranny to control dissent to my authority.”
Model of Government: Totalitarian Dictatorship (One Party Rule) after a short period of Mob Rule and Provisional Government.
Intellectual: The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Rights (Jean-Jacques Rousseau), The Rights of Man (Thomas Paine) debunked by Edmund Burke following Reflections on the French Revolution, The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels), State and Revolution (Vladimir Ilyich Lenin), Giovanni Gentile, etc. History has completely debunked these latter intellectuals, and much of this debunking was accomplished by the insight and intelligence of one man - George Orwell (1984).
Notable Results: The Reign of Terror, The Great Purge, The Holocaust, The Great Leap Forward, The Killing Fields, Al Qaeda Sep 11th…
The Monarchist blog is hardcore classical conservative in every sense in the world (unlike the more usual traditional conservatives, paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, and other “fusionists” of the movement) and so his ideas are not in complete sync with the majority of (American) classical liberal type conservatives. Yet his analysis of the “revolutionary” mindset is right-on-the-money.
This is a good time to review Burke’s views of revolution, for all of those supposed “conservatives” nowadays who instead adopt the New Right neoconservative fantasies of empire building, benevolent hegemony, and democratic imperialism. The following are some notes I took in an advanced political theory class concerning Burke’s response to the French revolution, abridged for relevance, concerning the flaws of revolutions and revolutionaries:
Burke is not against everything that is called a revolution. He supported the American revolution because he believes that they fought for rights that they had that others had tried to take away. Rather than destroying their old government and imagining and creating a new government based on things they imagined, Burke said the Americans were creating a government based upon rights they already had. The origin of the right of no taxation without representation is our right as Englishmen. “Revolutions only in the sense of reaffirming rights you already had, trying to protect traditional rights and liberties as Englishmen.”
Burke was not opposed to all revolution and change. “A society without the means to change itself is without means of its own preservation.” The only revolution Burke supported is reaffirmation, when government goes astray. Burke liked change if it is evolutionary and not revolutionary.
Using reason to create something that has not existed ever in history is very dangerous and unreasonable. For Burke we should not rely on reason as much as experience of things being tried. If nobody has ever tried it before, its because it probably would not work. We must listen to the wisdom of the ages. If something has been done a certain way for a thousand years then it probably works. If it didn’t work it would have been changed and evolved out of existence some how. Burke discusses the monarchy, overtime it lost power, but it was never kicked out. It evolved. When the monarch was kicked out for a period, Cromwell’s dictatorship resulted. There is a lesson here.
English politics has always been based in pragmatism. While the French were and are based in ideology. Even today, political scientists consider British political cultural as “consensual” while French political culture is a textbook example of one that is “fragmented.” People based in ideology will follow reason. People based in pragmatism will follow their experience, i.e. common sense, tradition, etc.
Burke says that a society that is always theorizing about politics is a sick society. If politics works well, be thankful. If you are always talking about politics and stirred up, then this is a sign of a sick society. Politics is only one aspect of life it is not the whole. A society that is obsessed with politics is a society that is in trouble. In modern society we tend to assume that every time we have a problem we solve it through government and politics. This reflects the idea that politics is not just part of life it is all of life. This is not to say that we cannot solve some problems through politics. Burke told his fellow Englishmen that we ought to do away with the slave trade, and promote religious toleration, and we ought to be giving people their rights.
For Burke, the French revolution was on the side of bad change because it was caused by people who just threw out the old and came up with a totally new way of doing things based on their reason rather than following the wisdom of the ages and allowing things in France to evolve to a better situation than that of the past. When Burke wrote this book there were many people in England said, “We need to have the same kind of thing here!” Burke wrote his book to disagree with this and stop this idea.
Burke was an Anglican and his mother is a Roman Catholic. He takes a very negative view of the religious aspects of the French revolution. The worst of those aspects haven’t happened yet at the time he was writing. Many of the British were against Roman Catholics and the Anglican Church and Burke just cannot accept that. Burke is against anything that weakens religion. Burke believes that religion is one of the pillars of state and society. “A state in which religion is weak is unlikely to be a good state.” It may be a strong state, since religion challenges and weakens government - but it will not be a good state.
Burke, in his analysis of the follies of revolutions was able to predict what is going to happen in France. Burke makes the argument that sure things were not as good in France as they were in England but at the very least the Frenchmen still had a constitution. Even Louis 16th, an absolute monarch, had asked the parliament to come when he had to tax people. He even had to call the Estates General into session. He was limited by the un-written ancient constitution of the French.
“We are building on the shoulders of our ancestors” we don’t have to start at zero at each generation. If we build on the wisdom of the ages, we increase our wisdom, we are better than those before us. If we throw everything out, we are back at zero. It is like the child that touches the stove and has to burn their hand to understand it being bad.
English political philosophy is different than French political philosophy. It is a very different type of social contract theory than the French. Locke defends the current order with his social contract theory. Roussaeu starts a new order.
Despotism of the people’s origins is during the French revolution, J.L. Talmon called Roussaeu’s work “The blueprint for a totalitarian democracy.” It is an absolute government by the people. The most terrible forms of government in the 20th century have been totalitarian democracies. The reign of terror was a totalitarian democracy. The despotism of the multitude, according to Burke, is extremely bad. There is a middle way between the despotism of the monarchy and the multitude.
Instead of using their experience, the French tried theory. They used abstract ideals and created a new government based on theory and absolute ideals which had never been tried. “Whilst they the French are possessed by these notions, it is vain to talk to them about the practice of their ancestors, of the fundamental laws of their country, of their constitution which is strengthened by experience of the ages and tradition. They despise tradition and thus they are going down to ruin. “
If you build a regime on reason and on theory then nobody has experience to lead. Nobody has experience with how a government actually works. Men of theory accept the theories of social contract theories such as Rousseau. We must destroy all of the old rituals, according to the French Revolution, because we must test all things by the scientific method and reason and do away with superstitions which keep us ignorant.
But Burke believes in “convention,” that there are certain things taken for granted in different societies. Burke has a real different view of nature from the French revolutionary leaders and Rousseau and social contract theorists. French Revolution says we must break away from society, why, because they all assume it makes us bad and unnatural. Society is unnatural to them. Burke says, if we divorce ourselves to society and the law then we are beasts we are like wild animals. If that is natural then I don’t want any part of it.
For more on the counter-revolutionary see here, here, and here.
Category: Political philosophy
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
