As the title suggests, here are some notes I wrote while studying the history of the French Revolution (for a systematic study, see Chapter 2, Section 2 of “A Concise World History” (Modern Part). The following are some additional notes).
The specific process of Louis XVI’s escape: The escape plan was managed by the queen’s lover, a Swedish-born member of parliament named Fersen. Meanwhile, the general Bure in northeastern France secretly favored the royal family and was responsible for assisting the royal escape team locally, escorting them into Austria. Due to the aristocracy’s decadent nature, the royal family rejected Fersen and other planners’ suggestions for a light and simple escape, insisting on traveling in a large, luxurious carriage that drew public attention. To prevent the plan from being thwarted or exposed by revolutionary-minded soldiers within the French army, the royal family hired Swiss and German mercenaries at great expense. Additionally, Louis XVI left documents before fleeing, declaring the Constitution and all previous decrees invalid, intending to return with foreign intervention forces to restore the monarchy after a successful escape. The constitutionalists panicked and hurriedly sent troops to pursue the king, aiming to recover their talisman and claiming the king was merely being held hostage, but this obviously failed to convince the revolutionaries who believed the king had already betrayed them.
Subsequently, the French royal family fled from Paris, escaping to the northeastern border of France. At the border, the revolutionaries recognized Louis XVI and his family, felt extremely angry, and, under pressure, the city council of Varenne, where the royal family was located, was forced to order the interception of Louis XVI’s party, trapping the royal family there. This left Bure, who was close to the royal family, helpless. Eventually, the army sent by the constitutionalists arrived to ‘escort’ the king back to Paris, and under their influence, they passed a ridiculous resolution declaring the king innocent but held hostage, and used this as leverage to have Louis XVI approve the 1791 Constitution.
1 Like
Diferentes actitudes de Girondinos, Jacobinos y la monarquía hacia la guerra:
Los girondinos abogan por “exportar la revolución”, exigiendo atacar activamente a países extranjeros en nombre de la “liberación”, en realidad bajo la bandera de la revolución para invadir otros países y convertirlos en colonias francesas, lo cual es muy similar a los comunistas “de izquierda” como Buharin, Tuhachevski y Trotski. La llamada “revolución mundial” de Trotski es así en la práctica; cuando la Unión Soviética y China invadieron Afganistán, también lo hicieron bajo la bandera de la “liberación”.
Debido a que los Jacobinos representaban los intereses de la pequeña y mediana burguesía, abogaban por la igualdad nacional. Robespierre pensaba que no se podía imponer el sistema capitalista a los pueblos, y que cada nación debería tener el derecho de elegir su propio camino de desarrollo. Por lo tanto, temían que una guerra exterior provocara oposición de los pueblos y que las fuerzas de intervención extranjera aprovecharan para invadir Francia y derrocar el capitalismo. Sin embargo, su opinión era minoritaria en el parlamento de la época y no fue adoptada (aunque contaba con el apoyo de la mayoría de la población fuera del parlamento).
La razón por la que el rey Luis XVI aprobó de manera inusual las propuestas de los girondinos fue porque esperaba que las acciones imprudentes de la burguesía francesa dieran a las fuerzas de intervención extranjeras una excusa para invadir Francia, y así acabar con el régimen capitalista con las bayonetas de las fuerzas extranjeras. La reina escribió a su confidente: “Un grupo de tontos, no ven que esto nos sirve”. Los comunistas “de izquierda” como Buharin y Zinóviev se oponían enérgicamente al Tratado de Brest-Litovsk, también con la intención de acabar con la naciente República soviética, y Trotski y Tuhachevski, durante la Guerra Civil Rusa, promovieron la llamada “revolución mundial” e incluso ordenaron a las tropas rojas soviéticas avanzar sin preparación contra Polonia, todo con el mismo propósito.
3 Likes
The so-called “September Massacre”:
At that time, the anti-revolutionaries imprisoned in the jail were shouting for revenge after the Allied forces captured Paris, forming organizations similar to the Vendée uprising to retaliate against the Parisians. To stabilize the rear and purge counter-revolutionaries, the Parisians stormed the prison, executed a large number of extremely rampant counter-revolutionaries, and hung the head of a close friend of the Queen outside the Queen’s residence to protest.
Faced with the formidable strength of the Parisians, the French bourgeoisie initially dared not openly oppose them. The constitutionalists claimed it was an unavoidable necessary evil, while the Girondins and Jacobins also believed it was justified. The Jacobins even dispatched a provisional court to help the Parisians try the counter-revolutionaries to achieve so-called “procedural justice” (but it can also be seen that the Jacobins represented bourgeois interests, aiming to keep the revolution within the limits allowed by the bourgeoisie). However, after the events, various bourgeois factions accused each other of instigating the so-called “September Terror,” believing it was a conspiracy by the other side to indiscriminately kill innocents and weaken the revolutionary forces.
Vendee Rebellion:
The Vendee rebellion was a large-scale uprising launched by the royalist French using the dissatisfaction of French peasants with the Girondin regime. The Vendee army can be regarded as the French Revolution’s version of the million-strong army. The reason for the emergence of the Vendee rebellion is that after the Girondins seized power, they quickly turned reactionary. They not only failed to solve the land issues of the peasants, abolished all feudal obligations of the peasants, but also engaged in rampant speculation, issued excessive assignats, leading to soaring prices and starving the working people. Under these circumstances, they also attempted to conscript peasants forcibly, forcing them to fight for the Girondins, which caused serious discontent among the peasants. As a result, the feudal nobles in France took advantage of the peasants’ dissatisfaction to incite uprisings and quickly seized the leadership of the movement. This means that although the Vendee rebellion was mainly led by peasants, they were deceived by feudal nobles who held the leadership, making its nature completely reactionary. Later bourgeois reactionary historians used this as a reason to romanticize the Vendee rebellion as a so-called “peasant uprising,” and even falsely claimed that French peasants favored the feudal system, using this to attack the “brutality” of the French Revolution, which is unfounded.
That’s a great point, it’s exactly like that. Now many people like to talk about a “output revolution,” which completely views third world countries as primitive nations waiting for them to “save” them. They now say there’s no “output revolution,” as if the rise of the Chinese revisionists is just a change in the Communist Party’s policies, completely blurring the distinction between the current reactionary Chinese revisionist group and socialist China under the Communist Party. Their current rhetoric is entirely serving the aggressive actions of the Nazi Chinese revisionist group, aiming to promote social imperialism and cheer for fascist China’s current and future invasions.
When will we talk about the rebellious things that the bourgeois feminist couple Roland love the most? Lady Roland still pretended to be very righteous before she died, but she didn’t see how the Gilettist faction was acting as a French traitor.
The relationship between the French Revolution and feminism can be referenced in this video about Robespierre, bourgeois feminism, Danton, and the French Revolution. In short, although the French Revolution did not specifically address women’s oppression, there were no concrete actions aimed at “women’s rights.” Of course, this does not mean that some revolutionaries during the French Revolution did not hold biases or even hostile thoughts towards women, but no one was persecuted simply for advocating women’s rights.
In fact, rather than saying that the Jacobins, Hébertists, and other revolutionary factions suppressed feminism, it is more accurate to say that most of the time they focused on fighting class enemies. Issues of oppression faced by a particular group, such as women’s rights, were often left to fend for themselves. At that time, women’s liberation was more a matter for themselves; they had the right to form women’s clubs to defend their rights, and they indeed did so. However, these women’s clubs were probably more concerned with political issues, like other political groups in society, rather than genuinely focusing on women’s rights.
Women from the bourgeoisie to working-class women formed their own clubs based on class, and these clubs held the same political status as others. Although there was a gap between this and true women’s liberation, it was undoubtedly a significant step forward from women being confined at home to serve their families.
As for why Madame Roland and De Gouges were sent to the guillotine by the Jacobins, it has nothing to do with their stance on feminism. It was because they openly opposed the Jacobin dictatorship—accusing Robespierre of “dictatorship,” Marat of being “the abortion of humanity,” and so on. They also colluded with the royal family, surrendered to foreign feudal forces, opposed the abolition of slavery, and made statements attacking the idea that working women deserved liberation.
In fact, De Gouges’s praise for Marie Antoinette, the Austrian spy, was clearly written in her so-called “Declaration of the Rights of Woman,” and she did not hide her reactionary political stance. Madame Roland was the same. When they claimed to be persecuted for feminism, they did not even think of themselves as victims of feminist persecution; they argued that they were persecuted for pursuing “freedom” (referring to the freedom for big industrialists and speculators). Otherwise, Madame Roland wouldn’t have spoken nonsense about how many people falsely accused her of crimes.
The exaggerated claims that revolutionaries persecuted feminists are mostly propagated by some bourgeois reactionary historians in later generations, who fabricated rumors that advocating feminism would lead to persecution by revolutionaries, through piecing together various falsehoods. Their logic is as absurd as claiming that because someone always drives a car, their death must have been caused by a car accident.
As for the issue of women’s rights itself, since class struggle is a main line, and the main line is prominent, once the feudal system was overthrown politically, women’s rights naturally also improved. Besides the women’s association rights mentioned earlier, women at that time could also actively participate in political activities, make political comments, and so on. Of course, political institutions were still dominated by men, and women were not considered to have the right to participate in governing the country, or rather, there was no such awareness at the time (even among many women themselves). This can only be said to be a limitation of the historical context at that time. However, despite this, women also supported the revolution; the Jacobins and the Hébertists had many female supporters. One of the reasons Robespierre was attacked by the Constitutionalists and the Girondins was that many of his supporters were “ignorant housewives who only knew how to do household chores.” Although this was not true, it indeed shows that it was the reactionaries who were some of the most extreme male chauvinists discriminating against women.
In fact, during the Jacobin dictatorship, some women’s rights as auxiliary to citizens’ rights were proposed, such as women and their husbands being considered automatically divorced if separated for six months or more, and guaranteeing women’s right to education, etc. Although this was only within the bourgeois scope of feminism, it was at least more progressive than advocating for women to be kept at home as domestic slaves, and even many capitalist countries today may not be able to achieve this.
As for the so-called Jacobin repression of women’s rights and closing of women’s clubs in later generations, it was not because these clubs promoted feminism, but because the Jacobins, as a bourgeois faction, were fundamentally opposed to the interests of the people. After gaining power, they gradually moved toward anti-people policies, beginning to suppress the political rights of the people, including places like women’s clubs. The immediate reason for their closure was a large-scale political conflict over whether to wear tricolor badges between bourgeois women’s clubs and working women’s clubs. Out of “stability maintenance” motives, the Jacobins suppressed mass struggles with a one-size-fits-all approach, so they simply shut down all women’s clubs.
Furthermore, regarding some revolutionary views on women at that time, Robespierre almost had no comments on women’s issues, except for an early article defending bourgeois women’s access to higher education, believing that men and women had no physiological differences, and that their education could be “complementary.” Moreover, the Jacobins and the Hébertists were probably among the best factions regarding women’s attitudes during the French Revolution. Compared to counter-revolutionaries who played with oppressing women, caused chaos everywhere, and had decadent lifestyles, the revolutionaries were at least better than them.
Moreover, during the French Revolution, there was indeed a notable case related to women’s issues, and it was quite interesting because this issue remains a dilemma for the bourgeoisie to this day, namely the Marion the Prostitute case. The Jacobins, the working people, and the amnesty faction in Dandong engaged in a heated debate over what constitutes “freedom” and women’s rights.
In short, during the French Revolution, there was a prostitute named Marion who continued to engage in prostitution after the revolution. During the Jacobin dictatorship, some of the lower-class workers and Jacobins could no longer tolerate this and wanted her to stop prostituting. When discussing her reasons for prostitution, these revolutionaries claimed that hunger forced her into it, and that this was caused by the old regime’s persecution of women. They believed that eliminating the old regime would eliminate prostitution. They considered prostitution immoral and a violation of “freedom” (the Jacobins’ understanding of freedom can be roughly regarded as Rousseauian freedom, that is, the freedom to consciously make choices that align with the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole). The working people opposed it on the grounds that this behavior violated the morals of the labor class.
In contrast were the amnesty faction like Dandong. Unlike the Jacobins, who represented the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, they represented the interests of the large bourgeoisie of the French Revolution period, especially the nouveau riche. Their moral view was that freedom meant doing whatever one wanted, or that a capitalist could get rich and do as they pleased. They believed that prostitution was also their “freedom,” and no one had the right to interfere. Of course, on this basis, they also had another sordid reason to support the legalization of prostitution: many of the amnesty faction were themselves frequent clients of prostitutes, and to maintain their own libertine freedom, they naturally supported such a stance. It was not surprising.
The most subtle aspect was the case of Marion and her mother. Both believed they had the freedom to prostitute themselves; if a prostitute voluntarily pursues promiscuity and sells herself willingly, others have no right to interfere. This raised a question: does forcing a willing prostitute to stop violate someone else’s freedom?
At that time, Marxism had not yet emerged, so it could not point out that this so-called “voluntary prostitution” was actually women being indoctrinated with bourgeois pornographic ideas, treating this as natural “human nature,” and that people under bourgeois influence essentially had no real freedom. As a result, the debate between the two sides ended inconclusively; neither side thoroughly refuted the other. However, if this outcome can be understood as a limitation of the historical context at the time, then today, when many still call for the so-called “legalization of prostitution” and advocate for women’s so-called “freedom” to indulge in promiscuity, it seems somewhat absurd. Yet, many bourgeois feminists who attack the French Revolution for persecuting women’s rights support this “freedom,” which only shows that they are even worse than people from hundreds of years ago.
2 Likes
Difícil de entender, pero también refleja efectivamente el pensamiento actual del feminismo burgués, que creen que solo las mujeres de la clase capitalista que pueden vivir una vida lujosa y parasitaria a través de la explotación y opresión de los trabajadores son las llamadas “mujeres independientes” y representantes del feminismo, y ven a las trabajadoras como si fueran iguales a otras burguesas, incluso insultando a las trabajadoras oprimidas por la vieja familia como “burros de matrimonio”.