Does anyone here subscribe to the Marxist idea of the French Rev.?

[TheReturnofLive]

I know that I am the less philosophically educated one here and I tend to succumb to the philosophical strings of contemporary academic institutions, but does anyone else believe in the Marxist / contemporary Postmodernist description of the French Revolution?

The idea originated with Marx, but has subsequently been picked up by numerous Marx-influenced Postmodernists, who deny the existence of meta-narratives, rather believing that society is just one constant struggle for hierarchical power.

Simply put:

We often see the French Revolution as a "revolution of ideas" - a war between monarchy and a government chosen by the people; a war between religious censorship and scientific openness; a war between nepostism and meritocracy; between autocracy and liberty.

For Marx, these ideas are illusory.

Rather, Monarchist France was structured with three classes of elites - the Merchants (or the Bourgeoisie), the Nobility (the Monarchy and family / nobles), and the Clergy (the Church; the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, etc.) - who all had significant hierarchical power in society; however, there were often clashes of authority / power between these classes.

The French Revolution, for Marx, was the victory of the Merchant class over these other elites, with the New French Republic (and subsequent "democratic" revolutions) being nothing more than Merchant states, where those who exercised unabashed, tyrannical hierarchical power are the Merchants, or simply put nowadays, the "Capitalists."

"Democracy" for Marx was a tyrannical state on the same terms of the Autocratic Feudal States, but with only one class of power - those who make money.

Would Marx be alive today, he would surely point out to the fact that all these institutions across the world - religious institutions and nobilities (think England and Spain) - are all under the thumb of the Merchants and espouse the same parroted ideas, ideas which enable this unilateral merchant rule.

Thoughts?

[dellery]

Not really a philosopher either, but...
I've always thought he was right about that and don't see how it could be wrong. Public opinion controlled even the monarchs to a high degree. The monarchs knew full well to create public opinion and then claim to be bound by it. The Bourgeois also knew full well that the true power lies with he who influences the vote, not the one who casts it. Republicanism distortedly reflects everything about the Old Order, nothing is new, except that back then the king had the honesty to tell you he was your ruler. Republicanism even apes the evangelical mission of the Church and declares outright war on nations with heterodox ways. Somebody once wrote, I forgot who though, that "Whenever I hear the word "democracy" I shudder knowing a bloodbath is going to ensue.".

[dellery]

Gustave LeBon, who is an authority in crowd psychology, but not much else , believes that institutions are created by their perspective races. His view is that the institutions do not even influence their perspective races and are only a representation of the race itself. According to LeBon, whether we ethno-Europeans be Catholic, Protestant, Liberal, or Aristocratic, whatever institutions we create will always represent the same things for the most part because they are representative of our race, and not the other way around. LeBon also believes you can create new races by mixing them up and imbuing them with new ideas during their inception, and then they will create different institutions. I'm not so sure that this is true, but am pretty sure there are those who do, so it's worth knowing.

[drummerboy]

Most democracies start as oligarchies.  I believe oligarchy and democracy go hand in hand.  Given man's fallen nature there will always be corruption and bribery.  However, in a democracy the constant need to maintain your office means a reliance on whoever has the fattest "campaign contribution."  And of course the wealthy merchant class will be the few in society who have the time, influence, personal connections, and finances to run for office.

[Prayerful]

I see it as a revolt as a revolt by the commercial and skilled working class (Sans-culottes) of Paris. Francis was very regional, with only a minority speaking langue d'oil with those assemblies of lawyers, the parlements highly reluctant to register laws that might mean taxation. Later the Parisian commercial classes managed to tap into similar regional aspirations held by businessmen who could never be a noble of the sword and who could only hope to be a noble of the robe after so much expense. They would feel a lack of respect. I would therefore see this as an instance where Marx was going in the right direction.

[drummerboy]

Don't forget how Louis XV ruined the French economy, with a little help from this guy: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_Law_(economist)