Now, it’s true that ‘ordinary decent people’ will suffer, but a revolt is something that happens to a society: the society is sick, it convulses, and these ordinary people become, as they say, a collateral damage. Perhaps they should’ve organized and done something to prevent the breakdown? That would seem like a better lesson than “whatever happens, don’t revolt”…

I’m sure we agree that the popular view of the Jacobins and the Terror is erroneous. I doubt if either of us would limit that to the view of the Jacobins, or the Terror. And I am at least as well aware as you of the different phases of the Revolution. Where we would differ, I think, is in the weight we would give to to what you would regard as the excesses of the Terror and I would regard as an integral part of it. Granted that it was not what anyone originally intended, it was still far worse than anything that had happened in France for many years, even worse than St Bartholomew’s Day: Fouche in Lyons was not the worst, consider the Vendee, the September Massacres, the fate of the Princesse de Lamballe, or the final settling of scores between the leaders of the Revolution which make Al Capone look moderate and merciful.

I agree Robespierre spoke against the revolutionary declaration of war against France’s neighbours. He also, before he had a chance to exterminate his real or imaginary enemies, wrote passionately against the death penalty. And once he and his friends were in power, I don’t remember that they (notably Saint-Just) were against the war. I really am not sure to what to make of him myself, but the phrase “two-faced conniving bastard of a weasel” does come to mind.

As for the improvements of the Revolution: universal suffrage was introduced on the condition that anyone standing or voting for the wrong parties would have a very short life expectancy, wars as futile as the Seven Year’s War were replaced by much longer but equally or more futile ones, slavery was indeed abolished (to be restored later), the absolute monarchy was abolished to be replaced by the absolute Empire …

This has wandered a long way from the original thread. To try to return: no, I don’t think moderates are the worst enemies, and I fear that in a genuinely revolutionary situation many real moderates will end with their heads tumbling into the basket. To be followed or accompanied, of course, by the heads of many revolutionaries.

“The fact that the king and his minions can and will get their heads chopped off if they go too far, it creates an important constraint.”

Very true. Also true for the President or the First Secretary of the Communist Party. But only a very partial truth.

Joseph de Maistre – not I think a writer much admired on CT, but one sometimes worth considering – put it more generally. Abuses in government may eventually produce popular revolutions, and that is a very important lesson for governments. But the abuses of revolutions are usually worse than the abuses of the previous governments, and that is a very important lesson for peoples.

You see, the French Revolution was not just a matter of beheading king, queen and some nobles. Most of its victims were ordinary decent people, and the outcome was no improvement. As someone, I forget who, said: enthusiasm for revolution in settled societies is too often playing with fire, by children who don’t even know that fire is hot.

I dont necessarily disagree with you. But I’m trying to find a way of defining the terms that doesn’t cary the implication that one is necessarily right and the other wrong.

That was not my intention. I do think though, that it is regarded as glorious by people who likely enough, if they lived in that time and place, would have lost their heads.

The most casual study refutes premeditiation. But that makes it all the worse. It did not start with the intention of creating terror. Instead, it descended into terror, going from the highest of intentions to the lowest of actions, and left a lasting mark in history by that process. It is hard for me to escape the belief that the modern model of non-violent revolution, pioneered by Gandhi, that most stern of lawgivers, and followed by King, is a more hopeful one.

I think the advantage of this definition is that it describes a difference of kind and not degree, and it’s not pejorative toward either side; when you think of it this way you see that any politics will have radical and moderate moments. And it corresponds, roughly at least, I think, to King’s ideas. Tolerating “tension”means accepting that you may have to commit to a posture that is irrationally costly, taken in isolation, if you want your opponents to back down.

The use of the Twain quote was to highlight the fact that the popular view of the Jacobin Terror is that it was premeditated and unique in its blood thirst, its depravity and its violence. It wasn’t. Twain makes it clear that the lot of the average French person was bleak and dismal for a millennium, but if direct violence is the measure you want to use then the Bourbon monarchy had more than its fair share, far more than the Jacobins can ever be accused of- the pointless slaughter of the seven years war and the Atlantic slave trade are just two 18th Century examples. Robespierre and the Convention of course abolished French slavery during the terror (5th February 1794).

But the real question is why did the terror emerge? It’s a popular theory that all Revolutions “carry within them the seeds of their own destruction” but of course this is crude determinism, ironically a charge leveled against left wing History held by those who believe Revolution to be doomed to deterministic destruction. Revolutions are dynamic, chaotic by their nature and at the mercy of human agency and events. The French Revolution and the subsequent terror is one such example of this in action.

The reign of terror stemmed from the destabilization and threat to France caused by the declaration of war in the Assembly by the opportunist Brissotin faction on 20th April 1792. The most vehement opponent of war was one Maximilien Robespierre who famously declared, “Armed missionaries are loved by nobody”. War was supported secretly by the counter revolutionaries and Louis XVI who saw it as an opportunity to bring the revolution to its knees and towards absolute restoration.

The reign of terror was not some uniform, thought out, premeditated plan of bloodthirsty action but one that was planned according to circumstances and events. This is why some areas of France never felt the impact of the terror at all. The maximum was an attempt to stop war profiteering and to try to ensure the supply of food to French citizens and Gracchus Babeuf was executed by the reactionary Directory, instituted after the fall of Robespierre.

Yes there were disgusting excesses, notably Fouche in Lyons who was recalled to Paris by Robespierre as a result (and would go on to be chief reactionary against Robespierre during Thermidor and faithful servant of Napoleon). The maximum was chaotic in its implementation and had dubious results and yes towards the end Robespierre descended into paranoia, exhaustion and excess. However the radical phase of the Jacobin period introduced policies and reforms we now take for granted- universal suffrage, abolition of slavery etc and saved France from coalition occupation and the re-installation of absolute monarchy in 1793-1794. This was humanity’s advance. Unfortunately there has never been a radical political advance in human progress that has not included violence as an integral part.

The reactionary revolt of Thermidor ensured the White Terror (surpassing the Jacobin Terror for violence), the stripping of suffrage; bourgeois rights as against citizen’s rights and the way clear for the Bonapartist regime.

The French Revolution is a tumultuous event in human history and cannot be categorised as ‘one event and one failure’. There are at least three distinct periods- 1789-92, 1793-94 and Thermidor until Brumaire (1799) and the periods differ fundamentally in terms of what was gained and lost. The Revolution’s lessons are myriad and its effects are still felt today. It should never be dismissed as a wasted, doomed, premeditated, violent attempt to change humanity- all tumbrils and guillotines. Unfortunately for the most part it is.

It was an incitment to action not an actual logical argument.

Surely you don’t mean that a call to action can’t consist in a chain of reasoning where a set of premises lead to a conclusion? In any case, I don’t at all see why such a thing couldn’t exist, and in fact I think “Letter” very much qualifies as a call to action that consists in a quite cogent chain of reasoning, etc. (On the other hand, you presumably also don’t mean that if “Letter” were submitted for publication at J. Phil., it would be rejected. Of course it would, but what exactly does that show? So, e.g., would the Crito I imagine.)

It’s true that King draws on “rhetoric of the American political tradition” to make his case. It’s also true, as I pointed out above, that King draws on Augustine and Aquinas and a rich tradition of natural law theory to make his case. In fact he draws on a lot of things. What he constructs though is precisely a very powerful argument.

Rich points out (78) that King is targeting “particular attitudes”, presumably particular attitudes that were prevalent in the context in which King was writing. This is very true. But it’s just another false dichotomy to suggest that King wasn’t thereby also identifying and critiquing a quite general tendency among those who style themselves “moderates” (across at least a significant range of contexts). If you doubt that this is a false dichotomy , I suggest that you check out some of Plato’s early dialogues (the Crito once again is perfectly serviceable, though the Apology might be even better).

Look, I’m not particularly hung up on the “philosopher” label (though speaking as someone who is in a philosophy dept., “rhetorician” does sound dismissive to me). What does very much matter I think is that King is making a quite insightful argument about people who self-conceive as “moderates”—an argument that quite obviously generalizes (see Hidden Heart’s 84 for a perfectly good contemporary application). But unless you approach the text as worthy of serious analytic treatment, you’re of course going to miss the argument (as lots of people on this thread obviously do).

“Where do we go from here” is really brilliant.

Also recommended: In a Shade of Blue: Pragmatism and the Politics of Black America by Eddie Glaude.

And – short but sweet – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ9zPySHbuY

* Your pursuit of a narrow interest-group concern breaks our message of focus on some general one.

* Your pursuit of your own self-interest that way threatens the viability of our coalition on some general matter.

* Of course we care about your grievances but we don’t have time to formulate an appropriate strategy; please stop sabotaging our worthy efforts.

Some of my friends in GLBT activism are feeling rather mean right now. It was always a given that the presidential and party line would be “When the time was right, we acted wisely, and now all is well.” But it’s sometimes infuriating to see the groups and people outside the party who told them to shut up, stop jeopardizing the ACA, and just generally to stop being so damn selfish now attributing the results of sustained protest to the target of the protests rather than to the instigators. Also, of course, now that they’ve got DADA repealed and some movement on marriage equality, they can please shut up about ENDA and other issues that will threaten the vital second-term campaigns.