A preview of 'Les Misérables' exploring Hugo's worldview and bourgeois humanitarianism

free discussion
1

Image

Try to recall some contents of this book and make a few analyses, of course, these are very imperfect. Moreover, this book is very large, and it’s difficult to find time to study it at the moment. Currently, besides my memory, I only have some simple underlined notes from my reading two years ago. I hope that through these analyses, everyone can gain some understanding of the various bourgeois ideas behind this book. I now want to write down a few points first and then update them continuously. Mainly because I don’t have concentrated time to write, I sometimes feel reluctant to recommend this work to others last night, and I hope everyone can supervise me to keep writing.

Hugo was primarily a Romanticist in literature. When Balzac, under the exposure of the contradictions between the Restoration monarchy and capitalism, was full of doubts about Enlightenment ideas, Hugo still believed in Rousseau’s set of ideas. The main positive characters in Les Misérables reflect Hugo’s bourgeois perspective and his response to the development demands of capitalism (referring to the historical time in the book).
1.
Most notably, after Jean Valjean escapes from prison, he adopts the identity of “Madelin” and engages in a typical personal struggle. The book states that Jean Valjean was initially a worker, then proposed astonishing technological improvements—seemingly due to a patent—and climbed higher, eventually opening a factory for black glass manufacturing. The book describes his industrial development, which led to prosperity in the coastal city of Montreuil-sur-Mer. It claims that his factory helped workers escape poverty (!). Here, Jean Valjean is no longer the impoverished man who was imprisoned for twenty years over a loaf of bread; he has become the embodiment of the industrial bourgeoisie. He also gained political power and became mayor. Hugo instilled in him various “universal love” qualities, saying he did not care about wealth—was not interested in money, and was entirely focused on others. Ultimately, through Jean Valjean’s ideological struggle, he decides to turn himself in at the court and shout out his prison number “24601,” to rescue the wrongly imprisoned fake Jean Valjean. We know that this kind of super-class love and kindness will never be bestowed upon capitalists. Naturally, Hugo does not mention the exploitation of workers by industrialist Jean Valjean. Fantine worked in Jean Valjean’s factory but was ultimately humiliated, fallen, and died of illness, yet she is deliberately portrayed as having no relation to the exploitation of Jean Valjean’s factory. In the end, Jean Valjean sees her in her final moments and decides to take care of her daughter Cosette in the future.
2.
Let’s also discuss Hugo’s attitude towards revolution.

At the beginning of the book—when it was still the Restoration monarchy—the bishop met G, a former member of the National Assembly during the Great Revolution, who was on the verge of death on a desolate hill. When the priest said the Great Revolution was too brutal, G said: “The French Revolution has its reasons. Its anger will be forgiven in the future. Its most terrible lashings contain the tenderness for mankind”. This assemblyman passed away with bourgeois revolutionary ideals. However, as we will see later, Hugo was less firm than this assemblyman in many respects; he even betrayed the interests of bourgeois revolution for humanitarian reasons. The assemblyman and the bishop actually embody two aspects of Hugo’s thought: bourgeois revolutionary ideas and bourgeois humanitarian ideas. These two often hinder and conflict with each other in the book. Through these contradictions, we can see the enormous limitations of bourgeois revolution.

We know that the climax of this book is the 1832 uprising (which we will analyze in detail later). At that time, the Restoration monarchy had been overthrown, and Philip represented the interests of financial capitalists. As a republican, Hugo’s demand was simply for the bourgeoisie to govern better to develop capitalism.
So he said:
In 1830, this theory was practiced, and Britain had already practiced it in 1688.
The 1830 revolution was a half-hearted revolution. It was a half-step forward, not full rights.
However, logic despises “almost,” just as the sun ignores the candle.
Who made the revolution half-finished? The bourgeoisie.
Why?
Because the bourgeoisie’s interests are satisfied. Yesterday they still had appetite; today they are full.
Tomorrow they will be satisfied.
The phenomenon after Napoleon’s fall in 1814 was repeated after Charles X’s abdication in 1830.
(Translation version, p. 755)
Here, the bourgeoisie should be understood as financial capitalists.
In depicting the rebellious atmosphere of the 1832 uprising, Hugo was willing to show the words of the suffering people:
“Who rules us?”
“Mr. Philip.”
“No, it’s the bourgeoisie.”
(772 pages)

After 1830, the industrial bourgeoisie needed revolution. Hugo also depicted revolution in the book, but let’s see what he said:
“However, society should save itself; what we call for is the good will of society itself. Do not use harsh medicine. Diagnose kindly, find out the illness, and then treat it accordingly. That’s what we urge society to do.” (p. 1130)
“In the torrent of revolution, there are those who swim against the current, the old parties.
Those old parties, favored by God with the right of inheritance, believe that since revolution arises from the right to rebel, they also have the right to make revolutions against it. Wrong. Because in revolution, the rebel is not the people but the king.
Revolution is precisely opposition to rebellion. Every revolution is a normal process of completion, inherently containing legitimacy, sometimes tarnished by false revolutionaries, but even if soiled, it persists and continues. Revolution does not occur by accident but by necessity. A revolution is a return to authenticity. It exists because it should.*” (764 pages)
The first paragraph clearly shows Hugo’s call for reform and rejection of revolution. In his writing era, under the joint dictatorship of the Bonaparte financial aristocracy and big industrialists, the contradictions of capitalism in France had already manifested. Even if he disliked Bonaparte, he called for not using “harsh medicine.” The next paragraph is a rhetorical device attacking the old parties, starting from the idea of “legitimacy”—it should exist, and he comforts himself that it is not “rebellion.” I think this provides him with a justification for describing his ideal revolution.

As a bourgeois, how did Hugo view the proletarian revolution? Let’s see what he said:
*The events of June 1848 are an exception, almost unclassifiable in history. In philosophy. When discussing this extraordinary riot, although we feel that the working people’s fight for rights is justified, the words mentioned earlier are not suitable here. This riot should be suppressed, it’s a responsibility because it attacks the republic. So, what is this riot of June 1848 ultimately? It is the people making war against the people. (1072 pages)
“Should be suppressed!” “Attacking the republic!” This clearly exposes Hugo’s bourgeois stance. He wants to defend the bourgeois republic. In his eyes, the middle and small bourgeoisie and the proletariat are all the people; how can they have contradictions? So during the June uprising, he even hesitated to call it “revolution”—he lacked the “legitimacy” mentioned earlier—what we can see is that the so-called legitimacy is only the bourgeoisie’s legitimacy—using words like “happened” and “riot” to describe what makes Hugo feel fearful and hateful. He also used the term “rebellion” for the proletariat, which he previously attributed to the old regime’s “rebellion”—the proletariat is gloriously labeled with this word! During the Paris Commune uprising in 1871, he thought the same: the republic had already been established! How could the people fight against the people? So he quoted the famous words of 1848: “I neither want the white terror nor the red terror.” Only after the bloodshed of the Commune did he change his view and show sympathy, willing to shelter the Commune fighters and advocate amnesty.

4 Likes
2

Hugo has always been very hostile to the working people, and he doesn’t really want a revolution. The so-called climax of Les Misérables — the 1832 revolution — was actually a small group organizing a riot, with no connection to the masses. A small detail in this scene clearly shows Hugo’s contempt for the masses: when the revolutionaries are killed by the reactionary government, they knock on the people’s door, but no one opens it. Hugo uses this scene to slander the people as fools who don’t want revolution. Hugo’s imagined revolution is that as a bourgeois lord, he raises his arm and the masses rise to help him overthrow feudal forces and the big bourgeoisie. But the reality is exactly the opposite, and in this book, he vents his resentment against the masses. The uprising fails, and Marius and Cosette go happily on with their lives, without mentioning the oppression of the reactionary government at all, as if the oppression suddenly disappeared at that moment. This shows that his attitude towards revolution is also very passive.

3 Likes
3

Hugo also opposed violent revolution, and even opposed taking necessary violent measures against reactionary elements. This can be found in the Wikipedia article about the positive character Enjolras. I don’t even need to read this long and stinky book again.
Screenshot 2025-02-24 201143

4
  1. Marius (Maruis) y Cosette

Marius vive en el lado de un abuelo reaccionario monárquico, pero al asistir al funeral de su padre, descubre el pasado de su padre como caballero de caballería de Napoleón — esto lo llena de entusiasmo, y de repente comienza a odiar la restauración, rompiendo con su antigua familia y yéndose a París a buscar su destino. Después, entra en contacto con la organización secreta republicana burguesa ABC.
Desde el principio, Marius se involucra en política con un gran romanticismo personal; no es un republicano, en realidad es un fanático de Napoleón. Las palabras de alabanza a Napoleón que pronuncia, incluso los miembros del ABC, no pueden evitar oponerse.
Cosette es la hija de Fantine, y cuando se describe que ella vive en una posada, se muestra un retrato realista típico de la cara maloliente del posadero. Luego, Cosette es llevada por Jean Valjean como su hija adoptiva.
¿De qué tipo de “amor” surge entre estos dos personajes?
En un parque, Jean Valjean siempre lleva a Cosette a pasear, y Marius también suele sentarse en un lugar a pensar (los detalles no los recuerdo exactamente). En estos paseos, sus miradas se cruzan varias veces, y así surge un “amor”.
Sí, estos dos personajes no tienen ninguna comunicación, ni siquiera saben los nombres del otro, ni comprenden sus mundos. Entonces, este amor no es más que una versión ampliada del amor a primera vista, una “conexión instantánea”. No importa cuánto Hugo use diferentes estilos para describirlo como algo etéreo y romántico, podemos decir que este amor basado solo en miradas ocasionales no pasa de ser una forma de deseo.
Pero en el corazón de Hugo, este amor es sumamente “puro”; incluso usa una situación cómica para demostrar que no está basado en deseo. Una vez, en un contacto visual sin palabras, la falda de Cosette fue levantada por una ráfaga de viento, mostrando sus piernas — parece que en ese momento llevaba algo especial, aunque no recuerdo los detalles exactos. Como resultado, la mirada de Marius se volvió enojada y llena de reproche, lo que Cosette no entendió. En otras palabras, él pensaba que eso era indecente y una muestra de coquetería vulgar, algo vulgar. Hugo quiere decir con esto: mira qué íntegro es Marius, que no tiene ningún deseo sexual por Cosette, e incluso condena esa coquetería.
Es algo extremadamente empalagoso, como la actitud de los confucianistas que mantienen una estricta reserva entre hombres y mujeres, y aquí no se ve “pureza” alguna.
Hablando de esto, hay que mencionar un evento que ocurrió después. Cuando Jean Valjean, para evitar sospechas, llevó a Cosette a su nuevo hogar y ella se separó de Marius, Hugo discute en detalle sobre el cambio de ropa de Cosette en su habitación. Dice que no hay nada más sagrado e inviolable que el cambio de ropa de una virgen. Entonces, ¿por qué Hugo discute tanto sobre esto y alaba tanto esa simple acción? Hace que los lectores imaginen lo que él llama “sagrado”. En realidad, esto no es diferente de la veneración que la burguesía tiene por la desnudez en las pinturas clásicas. La “discusión” de Hugo en realidad tiene una connotación sexual. Incluso desde que describe el amor entre Marius y Cosette, nunca quiso mencionar esto, sino que quería hacer que pareciera algo muy sagrado y puro.
Este “amor” también corrompe tanto a los personajes como a la imagen artística.
Debido a que Marius solo piensa en el amor todo el día, su mente se degrada, ¿y qué queda para la revolución? La gente del ABC lo desprecia completamente. ¿Cómo se resuelve la contradicción entre este amor personal y la causa revolucionaria?
Jean Valjean, mediante estrategias como mudarse, hace que Marius piense que Cosette ya no lo ama, y él se desespera. En ese momento, toda la ciudad se levanta en revueltas, barricadas ya están construidas. Pero Marius, por el dolor de amor, piensa que sería mejor suicidarse, y en su desesperación, decide ir a la barricada del ABC para morir en la revuelta. ¡Sí! ¡No es broma! Lu Xun dijo que en una insurrección revolucionaria, los objetivos de los combatientes varían mucho, “algunos incluso buscan morir”. No sé si Lu Xun escribió esto por ver a Marius así. Incluso en el musical, los dramaturgos burgueses consideran que esta escena es demasiado absurda, y la cambian por una lucha interna de Marius entre su amor y su causa. ¿Qué relación tiene este personaje con cualquier progreso? Hugo simplemente lo obliga a seguir el destino trágico de los republicanos.
El personaje de Cosette se ha convertido en un mero florero, una joven enamoradiza y una dama de la alta sociedad. Ya no se puede ver en ella la típica niña pobre de antes. Después de la mudanza, en su habitación, solo piensa en su amor, y las explosiones de guerra afuera solo le parecen ruidos molestos. Es un ejemplo típico de amor obsesivo. Como ella se aparta activamente de la sociedad y la multitud, y solo se preocupa por su amado, el personaje de Cosette se vuelve completamente carente de progreso.
Por supuesto, después de la revuelta, ambos personajes seguirán desarrollándose en direcciones aún más absurdas, llevando el libro a un abismo aburrido. Pero en la próxima ocasión, veremos qué ocurrió en la insurrección de 1832.

5

The bourgeoisie now finds the reactionary nature of Les Misérables insufficient, so they made a new version of “Les Misérables” (the one from 2019, which can be found by searching for Les Misérables 2019, and they also made a short film of this movie in 2017), specifically to slander French immigrants, claiming that French immigrants are biased and only engage in looting and smashing, and that their status should be changed through peaceful means. This film is not only artistically poor, with a feeling of abruptness, but its political stance is extremely reactionary, from the German Afghan immigrant who became a bourgeois to promote the German fascist party and even to hitting people on the streets. Imperialist countries are always the first to wield the butcher’s knife, and condemning immigrants for being too violent is just a joke.

6

I knew about this movie, and I almost went to watch it because I thought it was a documentary. But at the time, I thought it was just a film with the same name, not realizing it was a fictional story.

7

The plot summary of this movie is hard to explain briefly; if you have low blood pressure, you can go watch the original film.

8

From this book, it is clear that he was always contradictory. From the beginning, the parliamentarian and the bishop actually represented different directions. Sometimes he even said some self-contradictory words. His agreement with violent revolutionary tendencies could only be during the Great Revolution, with the peak in 1793. For example, in the previous post by Baobeifu, you replied with the sentence “The heads cut off during the Great Revolution could fill a square…”, and in this book, he compares the masses of 1793 to civilized barbarians, then says “Between civilized barbarians and barbaric civilized people, we choose* civilized barbarians***”, but immediately afterward he expresses relief:
But, thanks to heaven, there may be another choice. Whether moving forward or backward, it is not necessary to fall vertically. Whether it is despotism or terrorism, we hope to move forward along a gentle slope that has been arranged by God. To slow down the slope, this is all of God’s policy.
Beyond the scope of bourgeois revolution, Hugo is completely opposed. For example, when discussing uprising and riot, he divides them based on reasonableness—what is reasonable aligns with bourgeois logic, which is reflected in his attitude toward the June uprising. Also, this sentence:
Danton opposed Louis XVI as an uprising; Ebel opposed Danton as a riot.
Even regarding bourgeois revolution, the entire book is wrapped in humanitarian reformism, which is in fact at odds with violent revolution. Ultimately, humanitarianism peaks and develops into something very disgusting, almost insulting.
I also saw the scene in this picture, and I strongly suspect that the words like “I am guilty” spoken by Annuzola are exaggerated or added by Hugo himself. Because the execution of this traitor was a real event at the time. Hugo might have added these words to dilute the bloody atmosphere. And opposing the use of revolutionary means to suppress counter-revolution, there is an even more absurd and enraging thing later.
I will write all this when I analyze the uprising later.

9

Revolution of 1832
The uprising of 1832 was smaller in scale compared to 1830, so it is often not even mentioned in many history books. However, Hugo chose to tell its story, and this is probably largely because Hugo himself experienced this uprising firsthand, having access to many materials and providing some particularly detailed descriptions. Moreover, this minor uprising and those small republican insurgents are, in fact, consistent with his ideas—something to elevate and shape.
Indeed, if we consider this book, the 1832 uprising is the peak of artistic achievement in the entire novel and the highest point of dramatic conflict. Through this uprising, the novel consolidates all the main characters scattered in the past into a single event, making the conflicts especially rich and intense. It also successfully depicts bourgeois republican fighters in barricades using romanticist techniques.
However, drawing lessons from artistic techniques is not what we should do now; we should analyze the class aspects of the plot and characters.
Focusing on the barricades in the book, the core of the uprising is the members of the ABC Society. It is clear that they are guided by bourgeois enlightenment ideas. Let’s look at what Anzhelora (Angroa) says in his speech:
What kind of revolution are we conducting? I just said, it is a pursuit of true revolution. Politically, there is only one principle: mankind exercising sovereignty over itself. This exercise of sovereignty over oneself is called liberty. When two or more such sovereignties unite, they form a state. But this union does not mean renouncing sovereignty. Each sovereign cedes a certain amount of rights to form common law. Everyone makes the same amount of concessions. This mutual giving, equal for all, is called equality. Common law is nothing else but the protection of everyone’s rights by everyone. This mutual protection is called fraternity. (Page 1089)
Enough, it’s clear this is a repetition of Rousseau’s Enlightenment ideas. Anzhelora is already among the taller figures compared to the masses, and Hugo describes him as: “He is a bit like Saint-Just… He believes, since a violent situation has arisen, violent means should be used… He still belongs to the ‘Ninety-Three’ generation—magnificent and terrible.” Later, for comparison, Hugo will mention some of his correct actions.
According to the Brief Compilation of Foreign Literature, Hugo belongs to active Romanticism, and this is mentioned in the book:
The social foundation of active romanticist literature is very narrow. Their exposure, satire, and resistance to feudal tyranny and bourgeois hypocrisy are essentially individualistic, aimed at personal revenge and to stabilize their bourgeois social status.
Looking at the uprising strategy of the ABC Society: build barricades, resist, then inspire the people to act together through their actions, and eventually overthrow the restored monarchy.
It is evident that they had no grassroots work; from the beginning, they relied on their own solo efforts to evoke a response. After spontaneous mass mobilization, they confidently stepped forward. Ultimately, this is also a form of individualism, heroism, and overconfidence in their own strength. These republican fighters detached from the masses, making their uprising narrow-minded, and the barricades in Paris from the start were defensive, lacking connections and support. Engels said: Defense is the dead end of any armed uprising; it will lead to its destruction before it even confronts the enemy. The failure of the ABC uprising was doomed from the start. When they realized the masses did not follow them, they could only continue the tragedy themselves.
However, Hugo added a note when the uprising was brutally suppressed, elevating these minor figures compared to the people, making the insurgents knock on the surrounding residents’ windows and beg for shelter, with no response from the crowd. This made these insurgents appear even more “tragic” and noble, portraying the masses as cowardly. Yet, economicists, tailists, and others still worship spontaneousness, believing that the revolution erupts due to conditions, and that the masses will respond when the wave of spontaneity rises—just as they believed two hundred years ago.
The so-called fraternity idea also led the insurgents to do some things that obliterate the enemy’s distinction. For example, when aiming at soldiers about to attack, they say “He is my brother,” “Count me in,” and then “tearfully” shoot. When soldiers storm the barricades and massacre, they show no mercy.
There is also a three-dimensional character portrayal: Grantaire, a person more cowardly than Marius, who drinks and raves about women all day. Such a person, during the uprising, was drunk in a bar and missed the entire event. However, Hugo made him “three-dimensional.” When everyone else was shot, and only Anzhelora was forced to the second floor of the bar, Grantaire woke up, immediately understood what was happening, and heroically asked to “be counted among them,” to die together. A person whose mind is full of women and drinking can only be extremely selfish, yet Hugo imposes noble qualities on him, turning his “flaws” into “personality,” giving him the资格 to enter the Hall of Heroes. This is a completely class-transcending human nature.
Anzhelora did two correct things, which we will compare with a terrible deed.

  1. The insurgents exposed the spy in their midst, Charvet, the loyal hound of the monarchy. Anzhelora ordered his arrest and binding.
  2. A man named Lecabic, using distributed weapons, killed some of the crowd; Anzhelora executed him on the spot. Hugo then added his own commentary, showing that this incident actually happened. The corpse was later taken to the morgue; Hugo obtained the investigation report of this case in 1848. Lecabic had police credentials and was an infiltrator. But Hugo still wanted Anzhelora to kill the counter-revolutionary and, with “fraternity” and “humanity,” say “I am guilty.”
    In short, some actions resembled those of 1833. But let’s see what Jean Valjean did.
    Jean Valjean joined the barricades because he learned that Cosette, his beloved, was there, and he wanted to rescue her (or was it a decision after some investigation? It doesn’t matter now).
    Once a poor proletarian who had been imprisoned for over twenty years for violating private property, Jean Valjean’s life in prison was filled with hatred for capitalist society. The revolution should have been his grand festival. He might have taken up arms in future uprisings to resist. But the wicked bishop, with his damned humanitarian “reformation,” influenced him, and he remained a symbol of humanitarianism from start to finish. Therefore, in the barricades, he shot accurately but did not kill anyone, trying to minimize casualties. Because he wanted to continue loving kindness and could not kill.
    When the barricades were close to falling, and Anzhelora ordered the last person to leave to “shoot and smash this spy’s head”—execute Charvet—Jean Valjean suddenly stepped forward and offered to take responsibility. Charvet, in a daze, said: “This is justice.” Indeed, if Jean Valjean executed him, it would be justice. Jean Valjean had already served his sentence, but he used a false identity to roam free, not reporting to the police regularly. Since then, Charvet, the watchdog of private property, obeyed the rules of repression and hunted him. After Jean Valjean’s confession and subsequent escape, he was even more so. So, if Jean Valjean had executed Charvet, it would be a great relief—“this is justice.”
    But Jean Valjean let him go, cut the ropes helping Charvet, and shot to deceive outsiders that Charvet had been killed. He also revealed his address—if he was still alive later, come and face the law! The reason for releasing him, forgiving Charvet, was because after the bishop’s teachings, that damned doctrine of love dominated Jean Valjean.
    Handing over the government’s spy was betrayal, a betrayal of the insurgents in the barricades. No matter the era or uprising, forgiving enemies like this can only be betrayal—tolerance of enemies is cruelty to one’s own people. Jean Valjean’s release of Charvet is the most disgusting scene in the entire book. Because it occurs at the most intense conflict—during the uprising—and is betrayed by humanitarian poison to the insurgents.
    Those who stayed in the barricades truly sacrificed, but Jean Valjean’s act of releasing the counter-revolutionary—does it honor those who died there? If we are precise, Hugo, who personally witnessed the barricades, knew how insurgents dealt with spies and counter-revolutionaries (Lecabic is an example), and probably knew the prototypes of many insurgents in the book—who were naturally also killed in reality. So, when Hugo wrote such a scene, did he honor them? No matter how weak and narrow the resistance of these radical republican youths who died in the barricades, they should not be insulted with such “fraternity” towards counter-revolutionaries.

I repeat, this is the most poisonous scene in the entire book, bar none.
At the beginning of the book, in the conflict between the National Assembly member G and the bishop, the bishop still had the upper hand. After all, that member was willing to stand firm and say that the French Revolution “contained love for mankind even in its most terrible scourge.” But here, Hugo, with the bishop’s humanitarian soul, uses love for “mankind” to whip the insurgents.

10

It is incorrect to say that Hugo’s view of the Commune was changed merely by abstract discussions of the bloody suppression by reactionaries; in reality, this leans toward bourgeois humanism, and a specific analysis should be based on Hugo’s class stance and political views. Overall, Hugo’s series of actions after the Paris Commune revolution—protecting Commune members or fighting for their amnesty—still cannot be separated from his bourgeois republicanism, and also served the struggle within the bourgeoisie between republicans and monarchists at that time.
Before and after the Paris Commune revolution, besides the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the struggle between republicans and monarchists was also quite intense. Of course, compared to the former, the latter was mainly non-confrontational and secondary, which is also the basis for the collusion and joint suppression of the Commune by the republicans and monarchists—the “Defense” government established after the September 4 revolution was such a coalition of republicans and monarchists, dominated by the Orléanists (such as Thiers, Trochu, etc.). After the revolution was suppressed, their contradictions sharply erupted, centering on the issue of the state system—whether to restore the empire or establish a bourgeois republic. The Orléanists, led by Thiers, had planned to restore the empire with the help of the Prussian army right after the September 4 revolution. As a result, the German occupation army did not withdraw from France until 1873. The French government at that time was led by Thiers, and the monarchists held the majority in the National Assembly. Only due to widespread popular opposition could the monarchists not immediately implement the restoration, but they still aimed to make France “a republic without a republic,” preparing to restore the empire. In 1875, the republicans used the power of the people to force the monarchists to make concessions, but the result was the promulgation of an extremely conservative constitution, which granted the president vast powers—the president could appoint all military and political officials, serve as commander-in-chief, with a seven-year term and re-election possible. Engels called this period of the Third Republic the “Empire without an emperor.”
Getting back to the main point, in this context, due to Thiers’ government’s brutal persecution of Paris Commune revolutionaries and the fact that the republicans were at a disadvantage in the struggle against the monarchists, Hugo’s actions of sheltering the Commune members and fighting for amnesty can be seen as a means for the republicans to rally the masses, and to some extent, they did achieve success. In 1877, the executioners of the Paris Commune, President MacMahon, dissolved the Republican-majority Chamber of Deputies, which was elected, attempting to establish a military dictatorship. However, because the people supported the republic, the republicans won again in the new elections. In 1879, MacMahon had to resign, and the moderate republican Grevy succeeded him as president.
As for Hugo’s subjective attitude toward the Commune, perhaps it could only be described as “sympathetic” in terms of his support for establishing the republic. However, the republicanism understood by the proletariat and that by the bourgeoisie are fundamentally different. Moreover, Hugo was hostile to the fundamental nature of the Commune as proletarian and socialist.

4 Likes
11

In fact, Hugo’s statement that “the French Revolution has its own reasons…” is quite abstract; what kind of reasons it has and how forgiveness can be granted are not clear at all. But the cruelty spoken of by the priest is probably very concrete. Hugo himself also does not understand what reasons the French Revolution had, nor does he know who initiated and promoted this revolution. Therefore, the answer to the question of why the revolution exists is just a circular argument like “because it should exist.” Hugo also does not realize that the working people are the true creators of history and the initiators and promoters of the revolution. This is the most reactionary part of his worldview, which is why he becomes increasingly hostile to the revolution as the proletariat rises.

2 Likes
12

Actually, as long as one stands on the position of the laborers rather than on the ruling class’s position, it is easy to explain the “truth of the French Revolution.”
In France before the Great Revolution, clergy and feudal landlords cruelly exploited farmers. Mably revealed: “France only has wind and rain, no taxation anymore.” And all actions and thoughts opposing the feudal state were subjected to brutal persecution, “French people often fought openly with all official science, the church, and sometimes even with the state; their writings had to be printed abroad, in the Netherlands or Britain, while they themselves were always ready to be imprisoned in the Bastille.”
In such a country that oppressed all classes to satisfy the interests of a small number of feudal nobles and church landlords, is there any reason not to revolutionize? But Hugo could not say these because he stood on the bourgeoisie’s position. By 1862, the French bourgeoisie had already gained dominance; they exploited the majority of French workers just like the feudal nobles of the past. They were no longer revolutionary forces. Their stance led them to fear revolution, to fear that recognizing oppression would mean recognizing resistance, because their opposite — the proletariat — had long applied these revolutionary principles. Moreover, the birth and spread of Marxism, and the awakening of the proletariat, made the bourgeoisie tremble. Two years later, in 1864, the First International was established, and Marx solemnly declared in the “Communist Manifesto” that “the seizure of power has become the great mission of the working class.”
And Hugo, standing on the bourgeoisie’s position, could no longer speak of revolutionary principles. His class stance prompted him to erase all revolutionary factors from the past, to mystify and abstract the French Revolution of 1789, and to slander the recent 1848 revolution as riot and rebellion.

2 Likes