The French Revolution : Liberty, Equality...Conspiracy?

Bluesma
I guess you mean to challenge an idea that the revolution signifies a peoples overcoming a power structure.... without any "head" behind them?
Was it ever thought (really?) that a revolution can happen without anyone behind the scenes and action acting as the brain- stimulating action, projecting goals and intent, using whatever provocations necessary to stir up emotion and action, in order to attain their own power in the future...?

Yes, in a way. While it is understood that a revolution needs a brain, someone in control, the role of this leadership is too often subsumed by romantic notion of a popular revolt. For example, while your French friends recognize that someone took power in the vacuum left by the aristocracy, try asking them who took power, and I'm sure you'll get some curious answers. I'm willing to bet it will be vague. The identity of the leadership is unimportant, because they're always assumed to be representatives of the movement, they're assumed to be part of the greater whole. The concept of a leadership whose intentions are incompatible with the stated ideals of the movement is harder to swallow. I'm not so much challenging the idea that a people can overcome a power structure with no leadership, so much as I'm challenging the idea that this leadership cannot twist and manipulate the movement at will.

Bluesma
My point being- even if one thought there were no behind the scenes ambitious people orchestrating the french revolution, and it has just come into awareness for you,
that doesn't take away from the ultimate lesson of the revolution- that the power of numbers (and the crowd mentality) is a formidable and highly flammable force to consider for anyone in a position of power and responsibility.

It was Gustave Le Bon who wrote "The Crowd: a Study of the Popular Mind" (a french man) which tells me that the revolution taught them a lot about the power of the people... and how to use it.

I agree with you there. This lesson is still valid. But the tricky part here is "...and how to use it". I'm writing in this thread to point out that it has been used, and is still being used today. The power of the people is formidable, but is it a means or an end?

reply to post by Cathcart

...if you have any theory about conspiracy in the American Revolution, I'd be interested to hear.

Seems to me the financial powers behind-the-scenes decided it was time to stop using monarchies as frontmen and go for something more reliable and immortal - enter the corporation. Took a while to set up but they did it.

reply to post by soficrow


Yep, and the same could apply to the French Republic, which also took time to establish, but proved more perennial for future developments. I get what you're saying, there indeed seems to be parallels. I hadn't seen it this way, thanks for the imput.

reply to post by Cathcart


Any time. (Glad you get my view. Not something I count on.)

reply to post by tintin2012


You have to consider that the royals were not strangers to politics or finance. They knew how important the position was, and chose the person they felt that they could trust the most.

What more likely is that the crown put itself in a bad situation at the wrong time. Monarchies fell all the time, just that up until the Renaisance they were replaced by other monarchies.