French and Russian revolution. Comparison

Historical parallels are always instructive: they clarify the present, make it possible to foresee the future, and help to choose the right political line. It is only necessary to remember that it is necessary to indicate and explain not only similarities, but also differences.

In general, there is no expression more absurd and contrary to truth, reality, than the one that says "history does not repeat itself." History repeats itself as often as nature, repeats too often, almost to the point of boredom. Of course, repetition does not mean identity, but identity does not exist in nature either.

Our revolution is in many ways similar to the great French revolution, but it is not identical with it. And this is especially noticeable if you pay attention to the origin of both revolutions.

The French Revolution took place early - at the dawn of the development of industrial capitalism, the machine industry. Therefore, being directed against the absolutism of the nobility, it was marked by the transfer of power from the hands of the nobility to the hands of the commercial, industrial and agricultural bourgeoisie, and a prominent role in the formation of this new bourgeoisie was played by the dispersion of the old noble property, mainly landownership of the nobility, and the robbery of the old bourgeoisie, purely commercial and usurious, which managed and had time to adapt to the old regime and perished with it, since its individual elements did not degenerate into a new bourgeoisie, as the same thing happened with individual elements of the nobility. Namely, the dispersal of property - land, household and movable - created the possibility of rapid capitalist concentration and made France a bourgeois-capitalist country.

Our absolutism proved to be much more flexible, more adaptable. Of course, general economic conditions, which to a large extent had a global scale and scope, helped here. Russian industrial capitalism began to emerge when in the advanced countries of the West - England and France - the development of capitalist industry was already so powerful that the first manifestations of imperialism became noticeable, and in relation to our backward country this was reflected in the fact that the falling autocracy of the nobility and its rotting social support found support in foreign financial capital. Serfdom, even after the formal abolition of serfdom, survived for a long time as a result of the agricultural crisis that befell the entire old world, and above all Western and Eastern Europe, with an influx of cheap overseas American, Australian, South African bread. Finally, domestic and industrial capitalism to a large extent found support and nourishment for its grossly predatory appetites in the flexible policy of the autocracy. Two major facts testify particularly to this flexibility: the abolition of serfdom, which to some extent strengthened the tsarist illusions in the peasantry and made friends with the autocracy of the bourgeoisie, and the industrial, railway and financial policies of Reitern, especially Witte, which cemented the community of the bourgeoisie and the autocracy for several more decades, and this the commonwealth was only temporarily shaken in 1905.

Thus, it is clear that both here and there - both here and in France - the edge of the weapon and its first blow were directed against the autocracy of the nobility. But the early onset of the French revolution and the belatedness of ours are such a deep, sharp feature of the difference that it could not but be reflected in the character and grouping of the driving forces of both revolutions.

What in the social sense, in relation to the class composition, were the main driving forces of the great revolution in France?

The Girondins and the Jacobins are the political, accidental, as we know, in their origin, names of these forces. Girondins - peasant and provincial France. Their domination began during the revolution by the ministry of Roland, but even after August 10, 1792, when the monarchy finally collapsed, they retained power in their hands and, led in fact by Brissot, defended the power of the province, the countryside against the predominance of the city, especially Paris. The Jacobins, led by Robespierre, insisted on a dictatorship, mainly urban democracy. Acting together through the mediation of Danton, a supporter of the unity of all revolutionary forces, both the Jacobins and the Girondins crushed the monarchy and resolved the agrarian question, selling cheaply the confiscated lands of the clergy and nobility into the hands of the peasants and partly the urban bourgeoisie. In terms of the predominant composition, both parties were petty-bourgeois, and the peasantry naturally gravitated more towards the Girondins, while the urban petty bourgeoisie, especially the metropolitan, was under the influence of the Jacobins; the relatively few workers in France at that time, who formed the extreme left wing of this party, led first by Marat, then, after his assassination by Charlotte Corday, Geber and Chaumet, also joined the Jacobins.

Our revolution, being belated, having arisen under the conditions of a greater development of capitalism than it was during the great French revolution, precisely for this reason has a very strong proletarian left, the power of which was temporarily strengthened by the desire of the peasants to seize the landowners' land and the thirst for "immediate" peace by the masses of soldiers. exhausted by the protracted war. But for the same reason, i.e. due to the belatedness of the revolution, and the opponents of the left, the Bolshevik communists - the Menshevik Social Democrats and groups of Social Democracy more or less close to them, as well as the Socialist Revolutionaries - were more proletarian and peasant parties than the Girondins. But despite all the differences, no matter how significant or deep they are, one common, great similarity remains, is preserved. In fact, perhaps even against the wishes of the fighting revolutionary forces and parties, it is expressed in the discord of interests between urban and rural, rural democracy. The Bolsheviks are in fact the exclusive dictatorship of the city, no matter how much they talk about reconciliation with the middle peasant. Their opponents stand for the interests of the peasantry—the Mensheviks and Social Democrats. In general, for reasons of expediency, from the firm conviction that the proletariat can win only in alliance with the peasantry, the Socialist-Revolutionaries - on principle: they are a typical peasant, petty-bourgeois party headed by the ideologists of utopian but peaceful socialism, i.e. representatives of the urban petty-bourgeois intelligentsia from the penitent nobles in part, but in particular from the penitent commoners.

And the similarity and difference in the origin, and driving forces of both revolutions also explains their course.

We shall not here deal with the history of the National and Legislative Assembly in France at the end of the eighteenth century, which was in essence only a prelude to the revolution, and for our purposes it is now only of secondary interest. What is important here is what developed and happened in France after August 10, 1791.

Two formidable dangers confronted the revolution at that time: the threat of an external attack, even the outright failure of the revolutionary troops in the struggle against the military forces of European reaction, and the counter-revolutionary internal movement in the Vendée and elsewhere. The betrayal of the commander-in-chief, General Dumouriez, and the successes of the rebels equally poured water on the mill of Robespierre and the Jacobins. They demanded the dictatorship of urban democracy and merciless terror. The Convention did not dare to resist the onslaught of the Parisian workers and the petty bourgeoisie of the capital. The Girondins surrendered their position in the cause of the king, and on January 21, 1793, Louis XVI was executed. On June 29, the Girondins were also arrested, and the guillotine was also waiting for them. Girondin uprisings in the south and in Normandy were pacified. July 10, 1793 Robespierre became the head of the Committee of Public Safety. Terror was built into a system and began to be carried out consistently and ruthlessly by both the Committee and the commissioners of the Convention.

The objective tasks facing the revolution after July 10, 1793, boiled down to eliminating external danger, establishing internal order, combating high prices and economic disruption, streamlining the state economy, primarily upset by the issues of paper money circulation. External attacks were repelled; uprisings within the country were suppressed. But it turned out to be impossible to destroy anarchy - on the contrary, it grew, increased, spread more and more widely. It was unthinkable to reduce the high cost, to keep the price of money from falling, to reduce the issuance of banknotes, to stop the economic and financial ruin. Factories worked very poorly, the peasantry did not give bread. It was necessary to equip the village with military expeditions, forcibly requisitioning bread and fodder. The high cost reached the point that 4,000 francs were paid for lunch in restaurants in Paris, the cab driver received 1,000 francs for the end. The dictatorship of the Jacobins could not cope with the economic and financial ruin. The position of the urban working masses therefore became unbearable; the Parisian workers rose in revolt. The uprising was crushed, and its leaders Geber and Chaumette paid for it with their lives.

But this meant alienating the most active revolutionary force - the capital workers. The peasants have long since passed into the camp of the discontented. And so Robespierre and the Jacobins fell under the blows of reaction: on Thermidor 8 they were arrested, and the next day on Thermidor 9 (July 27, 1794) Robespierre died under the knife of the guillotine. In fact, the revolution was over. Only reaction, and most of all, Napoleon managed to cope with economic disruption by crude means: by robbing European countries - directly, through military requisitions, confiscations, robberies, territorial seizures, and indirectly - by introducing a continental blockade, which gave enormous benefits to French industry. In one respect, the Jacobin dictatorship prepared Napoleon for his economic success: it contributed to the creation of a new bourgeoisie, which turned out to be quite energetic, enterprising, dexterous, adapted to speculation in an era of high prices and therefore replaced the old bourgeois henchmen of the nobility and the noble autocracy, who from the time of Colbert were accustomed to eating handouts from the master's table. In the same direction in the formation of the capitalist bourgeoisie - only not industrial, but agricultural - the agrarian reform of the times of the great revolution also influenced.

Similar in many respects, with some differences, were the objective tasks of our revolution, which took shape and became fully developed after the collapse of our monarchy. It was necessary to suppress the internal counter-revolutionary forces, to contain the centrifugal currents, brought up by the oppression of the nobility of tsarism, to abolish the high cost, financial and economic ruin, to solve the agrarian question - all similar tasks. The peculiarity of the moment at the beginning of the revolution was that the need arose for the speedy elimination of the imperialist war: this was not the case in France at the end of the 18th century. There was another feature due to the belatedness of our revolution: being among the advanced capitalist countries, having tasted the fruits of the capitalist tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Russia was a convenient fertile soil for the growth of the theory and practice of immediate socialism or communism, socialist maximalism. And this soil gave magnificent shoots. This, of course, was not, or almost was not, except for the attempt of Babeuf, and then later - in 1797 - in the great revolution in France.

All revolutions were spontaneous. Their normal, usual, routine course is directed towards the discovery, the revelation by the masses of the population of their entire class essence at that stage of social development which they have reached. Attempts to consciously intervene in the course of events contrary to this usual trend in the Russian revolution were made, but they were unsuccessful partly due to the fault of those who made them, partly - and even mainly - because it is difficult, almost impossible to overcome the elements. The realm of freedom has not yet come, we live in the realm of necessity.

And above all, the elements, the blind class instinct proved omnipotent among the representatives of our capitalist bourgeoisie and its ideologists. Russian imperialism - dreams of Constantinople and the straits, etc. - is an ugly phenomenon caused by the predatory economic and financial policy of the noble autocracy, which exhausted the purchasing power of the peasantry and thereby reduced the domestic market. But our capitalist bourgeoisie continued to cling to it even at the beginning of the revolution, and therefore interfered in every possible way, both under Milyukov and under Tereshchenko, with the peaceful aspirations of those socialist groups that entered into a coalition with it. The same blind class instinct dictated to our zemstvo liberals intransigence on the agrarian question. Finally, for the same reason, the triumph of the class element could not be convinced of the need to sacrifice 20 billion (4 billion gold) by establishing an emergency income and property tax, without which the struggle against economic and financial ruin was unthinkable.

To tell the truth, the enormous significance of this tax was not properly understood by both the Social Democrats and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who entered into a coalition with the capitalist bourgeoisie. They did not find enough energy and determination in the struggle for peace. This was joined by ideological disputes that prevented us from thinking of a democratic revolution without the bourgeoisie. In general, it turned out to be marking time both in domestic and foreign policy.

The economic and financial questions remained unresolved, the agrarian question hung in the air, the war continued and suffered defeats. Kornilov played the role of Dumouriez, and the role of the head of the government, Kerensky, remained very doubtful.

All this helped those who indulged the elements with demagogy - the Bolsheviks. The result was the October Revolution.

It succeeded, of course, because the workers, the soldiers, and even the peasants were dissatisfied with the policy, or rather, with the inaction of the provisional government. Both those and others, and the third, after October 25, 1917, received what they were striving for: the workers - an increase in rates and a syndicalist organization of a nationalized industry with the choice of commanders and organizers themselves working in this enterprise, the soldiers - an early peace and the same syndicalist organization of the army, peasants - a decree on the "socialization" of the land.

But the Bolsheviks indulged the elements, thinking of using it as a tool for their own goals - the world socialist revolution. Leaving until the end of the article the question of species for the realization of this goal on an international scale, it is necessary first of all to give a clear account of what this led to within Russia.

The nationalization of the banks destroyed credit, while at the same time not giving the government an apparatus for managing the national economy, for our banks were backward institutions, mainly speculative, in need of a radical, systematically conceived and consistently implemented reform in order to become a real instrument for the correct regulation of the economic life of the country.

The nationalization of factories led to a terrible drop in their productivity, which was also facilitated by the syndicalist principle underlying their management. The syndicalist organization of factories on the basis of elective administration from the workers excludes the possibility of discipline from above, any coercion emanating from an elected administration. There is no working self-discipline, because it develops only under developed, cultural capitalism as a result of a long class struggle under the influence and external pressure from above, and, more importantly, strict disciplinary control by the trade unions, and this is due to the oppression of tsarism, which persecuted the trade unions. , was not before and is not now either, because what is the use of free trade unions when communism is being planted? As a result, from a producer of surplus value, the proletariat turned into a consumer class, largely supported by the state. Therefore, he lost his independence, found himself in direct economic dependence on the government, and directed his main efforts to expanding his consumption - to improving and increasing rations, to occupying bourgeois apartments, to obtaining furniture. A significant part of the workers went to the communist administration and was subjected there to all the temptations associated with a position of power. "Socialism of consumption", dilapidated by the day, long ago, it seemed, handed over to the archive, flourished in full bloom. For the unconscious elements of the proletariat, the situation created such a crude understanding of socialism: "socialism means to collect all wealth in a heap and divide it equally." It is not difficult to understand that in essence this is the same Jacobin egalitarianism, which in its time served as the basis for the formation of the new French capitalist bourgeoisie. And the objective result, since the matter is limited to purely internal Russian relations, is portrayed as the same as in France. Speculation under the guise of socialization and nationalization is also creating a new bourgeoisie in Russia.

The same egalitarianism, and with the same consequences, was planned and carried out in the countryside. And the acute need for food led to the same plan as in France, pumping bread out of the countryside; military expeditions, confiscations, requisitions began; then “committees of the poor” appeared, “Soviet farms” and “agricultural communes” began to be built, as a result of which the peasantry lost confidence in the stability of the land holdings they seized, and if the peasantry has not yet completely and not everywhere broken with the Soviet government, then only the madness of the counter-revolutionary forces, which, at the very first successes, lead the landlords and install them. Violence in the countryside had to be abandoned, but, firstly, only in theory, - in practice, they continue, - secondly, it’s too late: the mood has been created, you can’t destroy it; Real guarantees are needed, but there are none.

Our terror is no more, but no less than the Jacobin. The nature of both is the same. And the consequences are the same. Of course, not one of the fighting parties is guilty of terror, but both of them. The murders of the leaders of the Communist Party, the mass executions of Communists where their opponents incite them, the extermination of hundreds and thousands of "hostages", "bourgeois", "enemies of the people and counter-revolutionaries", disgusting grimaces of life like a greeting to a wounded leader, accompanied by a list of forty executed "enemies of the people" , are all phenomena of the same order. And how inexpedient and senseless is single terror, because one person will always find a replacement for himself, especially when, in fact, it is not the leaders who lead the masses, but the elements control the leaders, so is mass terror ineffective for both sides: blood", and with the blood shed for it, it will be established. One soldier somehow confidently declared that the French Republic did not become a people's republic because the people did not massacre the entire bourgeoisie. This naive revolutionary did not even suspect that it was impossible to massacre the entire bourgeoisie, that in place of one head cut off from this hundred-headed hydra, a hundred new heads grow, and that these newly grown heads come from the very midst of those who are engaged in cutting them off. Tactically, mass terror is just as much nonsense as individual terror.

The Soviet government has new beginnings. But, in so far as they are actually carried out, for example, in the field of education, this is done in the overwhelming majority of cases by non-Communists, and here the main, fundamental work is still ahead. And then how much formalism, bureaucracy, paperwork, red tape have been revived! And how clearly the hand of those numerous "fellow travelers" from the Black Hundred camp, with whom the Soviet power has become so heavily overgrown, is visible here.

And as a result, the same tasks: both external war, and internal, civil strife, and famine, and economic and financial ruin. And even if it were possible to stop all wars, to win all victories, the economy and finances could not be improved without external, foreign help: this is the feature that distinguishes our situation from the French end of the 18th century. But even there they could not manage without foreign countries: they only forcibly robbed it, which cannot be done now.

True, there is an international counterbalance: revolutions in Hungary, Bavaria, Germany. The Soviet government longs for and expects a world, all-world socialist revolution. Let us even assume that these aspirations will come true, even if in the very form in which they are drawn to the communist imagination. Will this situation save us in Russia?

The answer to this question is undoubted for those who are familiar with the laws governing the course of revolutions.

Indeed: in all revolutions, in their turbulent period, old ones are demolished and new tasks are set; but the realization, the solution of them, is a matter for the next, organic period, when the new is created with the help of everything that is viable and in the old classes that previously dominated. Revolution is always a complex and lengthy process. We are present at the first act of this drama. Even if it has not yet passed, may it still last. So much the worse. Russia is tired of economic ruin. No more strength to endure.

The outcome is clear. As long as the world revolution flares up (if only it flares up), ours will go out. Complete collapse can be prevented, the building of the new can be preserved and strengthened only by the union of all democracies - urban and rural. And the union must be realistically expressed. The nearest, urgent measures to this are complete non-intervention in the question of land, granting the peasantry unlimited freedom to dispose of the land as they wish; refusal of requisitions and confiscations in the countryside; giving freedom to private initiative in the matter of supply while continuing and developing intensified, active work and the existing state and public supply apparatus; the consolidation of all this by direct, equal and secret voting of all working people in elections to councils and by all civil liberties; cessation of internal and external war and an agreement on economic and financial support from the United States and England.

Then and only then can one endure, endure to the end, hold out until the time of the organic construction of a new order, or rather, begin this construction, for the time has come for it, and there is no force that would avert the beginning of this process. The whole question is in whose hands the steering wheel will be. Every effort must be made to keep it for democracy. There is only one path to this, now indicated. Otherwise - an open reaction.

Nikolai Alexandrovich Rozhkov (1868 - 1927) Russian historian and politician: member of the RSDLP (b) since 1905, since August 1917 member of the Central Committee of the Menshevik Party, from May to July 1917 - Comrade (Deputy) Minister of the Provisional Government, author of a number of works on Russian history, Russian agricultural economics, economic and social history.

Demonstration in support of the February Revolution in Kharkov. Photo from 1917

The most important events of the 19th century were the French Revolution and revolutionary wars, and the Great October Socialist Revolution of the 20th century. Those who try to present these great events as upheavals are either mentally handicapped or hardened crooks. There is no doubt that during the storming of the Bastille or the storming of the Winter Palace there were many stupidities and anecdotal moments. And if everything came down to the capture of these two objects, then these events could indeed be called a coup. But in both cases, the revolution radically changed the life of France and Russia, and even the course of the world.

PROFESSORAL ERRORS

Since 1990, many professors and academicians have appeared in our country, broadcasting about the uselessness and harmfulness of revolutions as such. My dream is to take such a character by the scruff of the neck and demand to explain how France in 1768 differed from France in 1788? Nothing! Unless Louis XV had a whole harem, including Deer Park with underage girls, and Louis XVI could not satisfy his own wife. And let someone distinguish the toilets of the lady of 1768 from the toilet of the lady of 1788!

But over the next 20 years (1789-1809) everything changed in France - from the form of government, flag and anthem to clothes. In Moscow of the 21st century, the appearance of a French petty bourgeois in a costume from the times of the Directory will not cause surprise - some kind of provincial. But a secular lady in a tunic from the times of the Directory will cause a sensation at any party - where and what couturier created such a masterpiece?

Now there are characters who call the revolution of 1917 a catastrophe for Russia, the beginning of the genocide of the Russian people, and so on and so forth. So let them try to say it to the French and Americans. What would their countries be like without the French Revolution, the American Revolution of 1775-1783, the Civil War of 1861-1865? Millions of people died in each of them. And after each cataclysm, great states were born.

“Great empires are built with iron and blood,” said the founder of the German Empire, Prince Otto von Bismarck.

And in the East, China by 1941 did not have a centralized government and was a semi-colony. During several revolutions, at least 20 million people died, and now China has the second largest economy in the world and launches manned spacecraft into space.

Comparison of the Russian and French revolutions was in vogue in 1917-1927 both among the Bolsheviks and their opponents. However, later Soviet historians and journalists began to fear such analogies like fire. After all, any comparison can lead to the very top. And for the analogy of Comrade Stalin and Napoleon, one could thunder for at least ten years. Well, now any comparisons of great revolutions are like a bone in the throat of gentlemen liberals.

So now, in the days of the 100th anniversary of the February Revolution, it is not a sin to remember what was common and what is the fundamental difference between the two great revolutions.

THERE ARE NO BLOODLESS REVOLUTIONS

Here is how the satirist Arkady Bukhov described the first weeks after the February Revolution in the feuilleton "Technique":

“Louis XVI jumped out of the car, looked at Nevsky and asked with an ironic smile:

Is this the revolution?

- What surprises you so much? I shrugged offendedly. Yes, this is a revolution.

- Weird. In my time, they worked differently ... And what about your Bastille, the famous Peter and Paul Fortress? With what, perhaps, the noise of its strongholds is crumbling and the formidable citadel falls, as ...

“Nothing, merci. Costs. And there is no noise. They just go up to the camera and mark with chalk: this one is for the Minister of the Interior, this one is for his friend, this one is for the Minister of Railways ...

- Tell me, it seems that your movement is not interrupted?

- More cargo only. Trains carry bread, and cars of ministers to the Duma.

He looked me trustingly in the eyes and asked:

So this is the revolution now? No corpses on lampposts, no crash of falling buildings, no…

"That's it," I nodded my head.

He paused, brushed a feather from his velvet jacket, and whispered admiringly:

How far technology has come...

This is how the sworn attorneys and privatdocents wanted to see the Russian revolution, raising their glasses of champagne in unison for “Svoboda”, “Democracy” and “Constitution”. Alas, things turned out differently...

The French Revolution found a response in the hearts of the general population. 1900 illustration

World history has not known bloodless great revolutions. And the years 1793-1794 in France are called the era of terror, as we have 1937-1938.

On September 17, 1793, the Committee of Public Safety issues the Law on Suspicious. According to him, any person who, by his behavior, connections or letters, showed sympathy for "tyranny and federalism" was declared "enemy of freedom" and "suspicious". This applied to nobles, members of the old administration, rivals of the Jacobins in the Convention, relatives of emigrants, and in general all those who "did not sufficiently show their immersion in the revolution." The implementation of the law was entrusted to separate committees, and not to law enforcement agencies. The Jacobins turned one of the basic axioms of jurisprudence upside down: according to the Law on Suspicious Persons, the accused had to prove himself innocent. At this time, Robespierre said one of his famous phrases: "No freedom to the enemies of freedom." Historian Donald Greer has estimated that there were as many as 500,000 people declared "suspicious" in and around Paris.

Jacobin troops staged grandiose massacres in provincial towns. So, the commissioner of the Convention, Jean-Baptiste Carrier, arranged massacres in Nantes. Those sentenced to death were loaded onto special ships, which were then sunk in the Loire River. Carrier mockingly called it "the national bath." In total, the Republicans killed more than 4 thousand people in this way, including entire families, along with women and children. In addition, the commissar ordered the execution of 2,600 residents of the city's outskirts.

An entire army led by General Carto was sent to the city of Lyon, which had risen "against the tyranny of Paris". On October 12, 1793, the Convention decreed the destruction of Lyon. "Lyon has risen - Lyon no longer exists." It was decided to destroy all the houses of the rich inhabitants, leaving only the dwellings of the poor, the houses where the Jacobins who died during the Girondin terror lived, and public buildings. Lyon was struck off the list of cities in France, and what remained after the destruction was called the liberated city.

It was planned to destroy 600 buildings, in fact, 50 were demolished in Lyon. About 2 thousand people were officially executed, many people were killed by sans-culottes without trial or investigation. The royalist Vendée uprising led to the death of 150 thousand people. They died from the war itself, punitive expeditions, famine (“hellish columns” from Paris burned the fields) and epidemics.

The result of the terror of 1793-1794 was about 16.5 thousand official death sentences, 2500 of them in Paris. Victims killed without trial or in prison are not among them. There are about 100,000 of them in all, but even this number does not include tens or even hundreds of thousands of victims in the provinces, where the punitive detachments of the Committee of Public Safety ruthlessly burned everything that they considered the remnants of the counter-revolution.

About 85% of those killed belonged to the third estate, of which 28% were peasants and 31% were workers. 8.5% of the victims were aristocrats, 6.5% were people of the clergy. Since the beginning of the terror, more than 500,000 people have been arrested and more than 300,000 have been expelled. Of the 16.5 thousand official death sentences, 15% were in Paris, 19% in the southeast of the country, and 52% in the west (mainly in the Vendée and Brittany).

Comparing the victims of the French and Russian revolutions, one should not forget that by 1789 the population of France was 26 million people, and the population of the Russian Empire by 1917 was 178 million, that is, almost seven times more.

On November 24, 1793, the Convention of Revolutionary France ordered the introduction of a new - "revolutionary" - calendar (with the countdown of years not from January 1 and not from the Nativity of Christ, but from September 22, 1792 - the day the monarchy was overthrown and France was proclaimed a republic).

Also on this day, the Convention, as part of the fight against Christianity, adopted a decree on the closure of churches and temples of all faiths. Responsibility for all disturbances connected with religious manifestations was imposed on the priests, and the revolutionary committees were instructed to exercise strict supervision over the priests. In addition, it was ordered to demolish the bell towers, as well as to hold "holidays of reason", on which they should make fun of Catholic worship.

THE CLERGY PLAYED THEIR ROLE

I note that there was nothing similar in Russia. Yes, hundreds of clerics were indeed shot. But let's not forget that there were more than 5 thousand military priests in the White armies alone. And if the captured Red Commissars were mandatory subjected to the death penalty by the Whites and sometimes extremely painful, then the Bolsheviks responded similarly. By the way, how many hundreds (thousands?) of clerics were executed by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and his son Peter, and in the overwhelming majority in a very qualified way? What is the execution by "smoking" worth?

But in Soviet Russia, religious activity was never generally prohibited. The Bolsheviks never thought of the cult of the “higher mind”. "Renovators", of course, do not count. The renovation movement was created by the priest Alexander Vvedensky on March 7, 1917, that is, more than six months before the October Revolution.

Representatives of the clergy played a prominent role in both revolutions. In France, the pop-shorn Lyon commissioner-executioner Chalet; former seminarian-turned-Minister of Police Joseph Fouche; Abbé Emmanuel Sieyes, who founded the Jacobin club and in 1799 became consul - co-emperor of Bonaparte; Archbishop of Reims, Cardinal of Paris Maurice Talleyrand-Périgord became Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Directory, Consulate and Empire. Further, a long list of spiritual persons will take more than one page.

After the suppression of the first Russian revolution, in 1908-1912, up to 80% of the seminarians refused to take orders and went into business, some into the revolution. In the leadership of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, every tenth was a seminarian. Anastas Mikoyan, Simon Petlyura, Iosif Dzhugashvili and many other revolutionaries came out of the seminarians.

On March 4, 1917, the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Vladimir Lvov, proclaimed "Freedom of the Church", and the imperial chair was taken out of the Synod hall. On March 9, the Synod issued an appeal to support the Provisional Government.

Conflicts with the church in France and the USSR were resolved in the same way. On 26 Messidor IX (July 15, 1801), the Vatican and Paris signed the Concordat (an agreement between the Church and the Republic), developed by the first consul. On Germinal 18, 10 (April 8, 1802), the Legislative Corps approved it, and on the following Sunday, after a ten-year break, bells rang over Paris.

On September 4, 1943, Stalin received Metropolitans Sergius, Alexis and Nicholas in the Kremlin. Metropolitan Sergius proposed to convene a council of bishops to elect a patriarch. Stalin agreed and asked about the date of the convocation of the council. Sergius suggested a month. Stalin, smiling, said: “Isn’t it possible to show Bolshevik pace?”

In wartime conditions, military transport aircraft were allocated to Moscow to gather hierarchs. And now, on September 8, 1943, a patriarch was elected at the Bishops' Council. They became Sergius Stragorodsky.

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

There are dozens of coincidences in the history of revolutions in France and in Russia. So, in August 1793, not only a general mobilization was carried out, but in general, the government began to dispose of all the resources of the country. For the first time in history, all goods, food, people themselves were at the disposal of the state.

The Jacobins promptly resolved the agrarian issue by selling off the confiscated lands of the nobility and clergy at a cheap price. Moreover, the peasants were granted a deferment of payment for 10 years.

Food caps have been introduced. Revolutionary tribunals dealt with speculators. Naturally, the peasants began to hide the bread. Then “revolutionary detachments” began to form from the sans-culottes, traveling through the villages and taking bread by force. So it is still unknown from whom the Bolsheviks copied the surplus appropriation system - from the Jacobins or from the tsarist ministers, who introduced the surplus appraisal in 1916, but stupidly failed it.

The European powers both in 1792 and in 1917, under the pretext of restoring order in France and Russia, tried to rob and dismember them. The only difference is that in 1918 the United States and Japan joined the European interventionists.

As you know, things ended badly for the interventionists. The Bolsheviks “finished their campaign in the Pacific Ocean”, and at the same time they beat the British in Northern Persia. Well, the "little corporal" with large battalions famously walked around a dozen European capitals.

And now it is worth mentioning the fundamental difference between the French and Russian revolutions. This is primarily a war with the separatists. In our country, not only the townsfolk, but also venerable professors are sure that the modern borders of France have always existed and only the French lived there, who naturally spoke French.

In fact, from the 5th to the 10th centuries, Brittany was an independent kingdom, then fell under the rule of the British, and only in 1499 accepted a union with France (became a union state). Anti-French sentiment remained in Brittany until the end of the 18th century.

The first known manuscript in Breton, the Manuscript de Leyde, is dated 730, and the first printed book in Breton is dated 1530.

Gascony became part of the French kingdom only in 1453. Let us recall Dumas: Athos and Porthos did not understand d'Artagnan and de Treville when they spoke their native language (Gascon).

In the south of France, the majority of the population spoke Provençal. The first books in Provençal date back to the 10th century. For numerous chivalric novels, the Provencal language was called the language of the troubadours.

Alsace and Lorraine from 870 to 1648 were part of the German states and became part of the French kingdom by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Their population spoke mostly German.

In 1755, the Corsicans, led by Paoli, rebelled against the rule of the Republic of Genoa and became independent. In 1768 the Genoese sold the island to Louis XVI. In 1769, the French army, led by the Comte de Vaux, occupied Corsica.

So, by 1789, the French kingdom was not a unitary state, but a conglomerate of provinces. The king appointed his own governor in each province, but the real power belonged to the local feudal lords, the clergy and the bourgeoisie. Most of the provinces had their own states (parliaments) that exercised legislative power. In particular, the States determined what taxes the population would pay, and they themselves, without the participation of the royal power, collected them. Local languages were widely used in the provinces. Even the measures of length and weight in the provinces were different from those of Paris.

The fundamental difference between the French revolutionaries and the Russians is their attitude towards the separatists. Kerensky in April-October 1917 encouraged the separatists in every possible way, giving them rights close to independence, and from April 1917 began to create "national" units within the Russian army.

Well, all the French revolutionaries - Jacobins, Girondins, Thermidorians and Brumerians - were fixated on the formula: "The French Republic is one and indivisible."

On January 4, 1790, the Constituent Assembly abolished the provinces and abolished all the privileges of local authorities without exception. And on March 4 of the same year, 83 small departments were created instead. The same province of Brittany was divided into five departments.

If you look at the map, all the major "counter-revolutionary actions" in 1792-1800 took place exclusively in the former provinces, which were relatively recently annexed to the kingdom and where local languages \u200b\u200bare widely used.

Naturally, French historians have always gone out of their way to prove that the civil war in France was exclusively social in nature - republicans against monarchists.

In fact, even in the Vendée and Brittany, the population fought mainly not for the white lilies of the Bourbons, but for their local interests against the "tyranny of Paris."

In the summer of 1793, the southern French cities of Lyon, Toulouse, Marseille and Toulon raised a rebellion. Among the rebels there were also royalists, but the overwhelming majority demanded the creation of a "federation of departments", independent of the Parisian "tyrants". The rebels themselves called themselves Federalists.

The rebels were vigorously supported by the British. At Paoli's request, they occupied Corsica.

The generals of the "revolutionary time" on August 22 captured Lyon, and the next day - Marseille. But Toulon proved impregnable.

On August 28, 1793, 40 English ships under the command of Admiral Hood entered Toulon captured by the "federalists". The bulk of the French Mediterranean fleet and military supplies of a huge arsenal fell into the hands of the British. Following the British, Spanish, Sardinian and Neapolitan troops arrived in Toulon - a total of 19.6 thousand people. They were joined by 6,000 Toulon federalists. The Spanish Admiral Graziano took command of the expeditionary force.

As you can see, the conflict was not so much social - the revolutionaries against the royalists, as national: the northerners were expelled, and the southerners (Provencals) were left.

In Paris, the news of the occupation of Toulon by the British made a tremendous impression. In a special message, the Convention addressed all the citizens of France, urging them to fight against the Toulon rebels. “Let the punishment of the traitors be exemplary,” the appeal said, “the traitors of Toulon do not deserve the honor of being called French.” The Convention did not enter into negotiations with the rebels. The dispute about a united France was to be decided by cannons - "the last argument of the kings."

Near Toulon, the Republicans suffered heavy losses. The head of the siege artillery was also killed. Then the Commissioner of the Convention, Salicetti, brought to the headquarters of the Republicans a small, thin 24-year-old Corsican - artillery captain Napoleone Buonaparte. At the very first military council, he, pointing his finger at Fort Eguillette on the map, exclaimed: "That's where Toulon is!" “And the small one, it seems, is not strong in geography,” was the remark of General Carto. The revolutionary generals laughed in unison. Only the Commissioner of the Convention, Augustin Robespierre, said: “Act, citizen of Buonaparte!” The generals fell silent - it was not safe to argue with the dictator's brother.

What follows is well known. Toulon was taken in a day, Buonaparte became a general.

Napoleon's victories reconciled the Corsicans with Paris, and they accepted the authority of the First Consul of the Republic.

The first consul, and then the emperor Napoleon did everything to digest the Bretons, Gascons, Alsatians, etc. in the French cauldron. He was given weekly summaries of the use of local languages.

Well, at the beginning of the 19th century, the use of local languages in France was completely prohibited by law. Prohibitions, development of economic ties, mass recruitment, universal education (in French), etc. made France a mono-ethnic state by 1914. Only Corsica represented some exception.

The Bolsheviks, following Kerensky, "took a different path." If Napoleon Frenchized the peoples who for centuries had their own statehood, a language radically different from French, etc., then Kerensky and the Bolsheviks created artificial states like Ukraine and Georgia, the majority of whose population did not understand either Ukrainian or Georgian.

Well, the last similarity between the French and Russian revolutions. In 1991, the liberals managed to deprive Russians of the gains of socialism - free health care and education, high pensions, free housing, etc.

And in France, liberals have been depriving France for half a century of what the revolution and Napoleon gave it, that is, a mono-ethnic state and the Napoleonic code (1804). They staged an invasion of migrants, most of whom live on welfare. Migrants actually have judicial immunity. Same-sex marriages introduced. Under the guise of strengthening the rights of women and children, the role of husbands has been reduced to the functions of male servants, and so on. etc.

With howling "brilliant idea" to fight the existing system, former Manchester United and France player Eric Cantona tossed fans in a November interview with Presse Océan magazine.

Answering a question about the pension reform and public disagreement with it, he said that in the current situation, protests are not suitable. “Instead of going out into the street and stomping kilometers (at demonstrations and rallies), you can go to the bank of your locality and withdraw your money,” he suggested. The algorithm of actions is simple. “The entire political system is built on banking power. And if there are 20 million people who are ready to withdraw their money from the banks, then the system will collapse: without weapons and without blood. And then they will listen to us, ”the football player explained. “Three million, ten million people - and now this is a real threat. And then there will be a real revolution. A revolution brought about by banks,” he added.

Canton's call to withdraw money from banks in a matter of days caused a great resonance not only in his homeland, in France, but throughout the world. And through the Internet, the action plan has spread to other European countries.

The Belgian Geraldine Feyen and the Frenchman Jan Sarfati created the bankrun2010.com website to support Canton's idea. There's a group on Facebook called "December 7th we're all going to take our money out of the banks."

According to the French Midi Libre, on the eve of X-day, more than 38,000 netizens confirmed their desire to take part in this action, and another 30,000 said they might join the activists. The residents of the United Kingdom, where Cantona still remains the king of football, responded especially zealously to the call of the football player.

In France, there are about 9 thousand like-minded people on the Facebook page " Revolution! On 12/07 Let's go everybody to withdraw our money!” (“Revolution! 7/12 take our money”) they say they will withdraw money from their accounts. “Banks always hit us when we are already falling to the ground. Let's hit them too, emptying our accounts,” one Facebook page urges.

Eric Cantona himself also followed his advice. According to boursier.com, the former Manchester United striker did apply on Tuesday to the local branch of BNP Paribas, where he keeps his savings, with a request to give him the opportunity to withdraw money. However, the bank only confirmed that he was going to withdraw an amount exceeding 1,500 euros.

However, not everyone supports the player. Opponents of the call remind that "for this game to be fun, you must belong to the middle class and have a fairly large account, albeit not as large as Mr. Canton's." “What to do with the withdrawn money? Put them under the mattress? Or put them in "tax heaven"?" - others are interested, calling the call of the football player "simple pathos."

At the same time, as the French Le Point writes, “a lively debate between bank leaders, their most loyal lawyer Christine Lagarde (French Economy Minister) and Eric Cantona proves that the threat to take the deposits of French citizens from banks is the only thing that can frighten the financial system."

Earlier, Christine Lagarde, in a not very polite manner, sent Eric Canton "to play ball on the football field." “This is not only contempt for the eminent football player, but also ignorance, a desire not to reckon with the reality that all citizens face when they have banking difficulties,” one of the deputies of the French parliament explained to the newspaper.

The Great French Revolution was engendered by the most acute contradictions between the various strata of French society. So, on the eve of the revolution, industrialists, traders, merchants, who were part of the so-called "third estate", paid significant taxes to the royal treasury, although their trade was fettered by many government restrictions.

The domestic market was extremely narrow, since the impoverished peasantry bought almost no manufactured goods. Of the 26 million French, only 270 thousand were privileged - 140 thousand nobles and 130 thousand priests, who owned 3/5 of the arable land and paid almost no taxes. The main burden of taxation was borne by the peasants, who were living below the poverty line. The inevitability of the revolution was also predetermined by the fact that absolutism in France did not meet the national interests, defending medieval class privileges: the exclusive rights of the nobility to land, the guild system, royal trade monopolies.

In 1788, on the eve of the revolution, France entered into a deep economic crisis. The financial and commercial and industrial crisis, the bankruptcy of the state treasury, ruined by the wasteful spending of the court of Louis XVI, crop failure, resulting in the high cost of food, exacerbated the peasant unrest. Under these conditions, the government of Louis XVI was forced to convene on May 5, 1789, the Estates General, which had not met for 175 years (from 1614 to 1789). The king counted on the help of the estates in overcoming financial difficulties. The states-general consisted, as before, of three estates: the clergy, the nobility and the "third estate". The deputies of the "third estate" demanded the abolition of the old procedure for voting separately by chambers and the introduction of voting by a simple majority. The government did not agree with this and tried to disperse the Constituent Assembly (in June the States General were renamed by their deputies). The people of Paris supported the Assembly and on July 14, 1789, they stormed the royal fortress-prison Bastille.

The French Revolution was led by the bourgeois class. But the tasks that confronted this revolution could only be accomplished thanks to the fact that its main driving force was the masses of the people - the peasantry and the urban plebeians. The French Revolution was a people's revolution, and therein lay its strength. The active, decisive participation of the masses of the people gave the revolution the breadth and scope that it differed from. other bourgeois revolutions. French Revolution at the end of the 18th century remained a classic example of the most completed bourgeois-democratic revolution.

The French Revolution took place almost a century and a half later than the English. If in England the bourgeoisie opposed the royal power in alliance with the new nobility, then in France it opposed the king and the nobility, relying on the broad plebeian masses of the city and the peasantry.

The aggravation of contradictions in the country caused the demarcation of political forces. In 1791, three groups were active in France:

Feuillants - representatives of the big constitutional-monarchist bourgeoisie and the liberal nobility; Representatives: Lafayette, Sieyes, Barnave and the Lamet brothers. Several representatives of the current were ministers of France during the period of the constitutional monarchy. In general, the policy of the Feuillants was conservative and aimed at preventing further revolutionary transformations. After the overthrow of the monarchy on August 9-10, 1792, the Feuillants group was dispersed by the Jacobins, who accused its members of betraying the cause of the revolution.

Girondins - mainly representatives of the provincial commercial and industrial bourgeoisie.

Supporters of individual freedom, admirers of the democratic political theory of Rousseau, who very soon began to express themselves in a republican spirit, ardent defenders of the revolution, which they wanted to transfer even beyond the borders of France.

Jacobins - representatives of the petty and part of the middle bourgeoisie, artisans and peasantry, supporters of the establishment of a bourgeois-democratic republic

The course of the French Revolution 1789 - 1794 conditionally divided into the following stages:

1. Period of constitutional monarchy (1789-1792). The main driving force is the big aristocratic bourgeoisie (represented by the Marquises Mirabeau and Lafayette), the Feuillants hold political power. In 1791 the first Constitution of France (1789) was adopted.

2. Girondin period (1792-1793). On August 10, 1792, the monarchy fell, King Louis XVI and the royal family were arrested, the Girondins came to power (name from the Gironde department, in which the city of Bordeaux is located, many Girondins, such as Brissot, came from there), proclaiming France a republic. In September 1792, instead of the Legislative Assembly of France provided for by the abolished Constitution of 1791, a new Constituent Assembly, the National Convention, was convened. However, the Girondins were in the minority in the Convention. Also represented in the Convention were the Jacobins, who professed more leftist views than the Girondins, spokesmen for the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. The majority in the Convention was the so-called "swamp", on the position of which the fate of the revolution actually depended.

3. Jacobin period (1793-1794). On May 31-June 2, 1793, power passed from the Girondins to the Jacobins, the Jacobin dictatorship was established, the republic was strengthened. The French Constitution, drafted by the Jacobins, was never put into effect.

4. Thermidorian period (1794-1795). In July 1794, the Thermidorian coup deposed the Jacobins and executed their leaders. The French Revolution marked a conservative turn.

5. Period of the Directory (1795-1799). In 1795, a new French Constitution was adopted. The convention was dissolved. The Directory was established - the collective head of state, consisting of five directors. The Directory was overthrown in November 1799 as a result of the Brumaire coup led by General Napoleon Bonaparte. This marked the end of the Great French Bourgeois Revolution of 1789-1799.

The main results of the French Revolution:

1. It consolidated and simplified the complex variety of pre-revolutionary forms of ownership.

2. The lands of many (but not all) nobles were sold to the peasants with an installment plan of 10 years in small plots (parcels).

3. The revolution swept away all class barriers. It abolished the privileges of the nobility and clergy and introduced equal social opportunities for all citizens. All this contributed to the expansion of civil rights in all European countries, the introduction of constitutions in countries that did not have them before.

4. The revolution took place under the auspices of representative elected bodies: the National Constituent Assembly (1789-1791), the Legislative Assembly (1791-1792), the Convention (1792-1794). This contributed to the development of parliamentary democracy, despite subsequent setbacks.

5. The revolution gave rise to a new state structure - a parliamentary republic.

6. The state was now the guarantor of equal rights for all citizens.

7. The financial system was transformed: the estate nature of taxes was abolished, the principle of their universality and proportionality to income or property was introduced. The publicity of the budget was proclaimed.

Portal for the student. Self-training

French and Russian revolution. Comparison

More on the topic Features of the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century: background, driving forces, main political currents, results and historical significance:

Portal for the student. Self-training

More on the topic Features of the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century: background, driving forces, main political currents, results and historical significance:

RELATED ARTICLES