The French Revolution

Let's look at what is told in the essay "The French Revolution as a World-Historical Event" by Immanuel Wallerstein!

In this essay, Wallerstein writes about the French Revolution as a globally significant historical event, specifically emphasizing its importance. Wallerstein talks about two groups arguing about the French Revolution. One group, led by Georges Soboul, thought it was a political change by the middle class. The other group, led by Alfred Cobban and François Furet, disagreed. They say France was not feudal, but more like a bossy government, and the revolution was about people wanting more freedom. The writer talks about two different opinions on the French Revolution, especially about what happened on August 10, 1792. One person, Soboul, thinks it was a "second revolution" bringing in a free and democratic government. The other person, Furet, sees it differently, thinks it closed the way to a liberal society and led to a kind of new bossy rule, not freedom. They disagree about the meaning of the events and the people involved, like Robespierre.

The article consists of two parts: the first one is “The Long War”;

He is talking about what two groups of people think about a long war that happened between France and Great Britain from 1792 to 1815. According to Soboul, one group (French aristocrats) who lost in a war within France, started this international war to try and get back their power. On the other hand, Furet and his group think that the revolutionary people, or at least most of them, wanted this war to keep the revolution going and make it stronger. So, the two sides have different ideas about why this war happened.

Wallerstein suggests nobody is thinking about whether the war might have happened even if there had not been a French Revolution. There were already three big wars between Britain and France in the past 100 years. The writer is saying that maybe the war from 1792 to 1815 was just the fourth and last one in a long history of fights between the two countries for control of the world economy. The writer is talking about a summary of their ideas from a book called "The Modern World-System." They are explaining how things have been working globally for a long time, and that both England and France have always been a part of it. This is just to help us understand the background for what they want to say about how the French Revolution changed the way the whole world works. He thinks that England and France have been involved in this way of organizing the world for a very long time.

Wallerstein is talking about a different way of looking at things called a "world-systems perspective." This perspective does not agree with the main ideas of the two big schools of thought about the French Revolution. According to this perspective, the French Revolution could not have been just a "bourgeois revolution" because, in the global system where France existed, the rich class already acted like capitalists. They did not need a revolution in individual countries to do what they wanted economically. He says that even though some rich groups might not have liked their government's policies and could have done things that seemed like a rebellion, it doesn't mean they were trying to change the whole system.

Wallerstein talks about a different way of thinking called the "world-systems perspective." This idea doesn't agree with the thought that in each country there was a big fight between rulers and people who wanted more freedom, called "liberals." The writer says this "liberalism" was more like a plan of rich people and only happened in important parts of the world. They also say that by the late 1700s, neither England nor France had what we now call "liberal" systems. It took them about a hundred more years to get there. He believes that what happened in France in 1792 was not more important in the long run than what happened in England in 1649. Looking at the 1900s, the writer says that Britain and France are pretty similar in how they run things. They are not so different from other countries like Sweden, which didn't have big events like the English or French revolutions.

Then, he talks about a big event in 1763, which they call the "last act" in a long competition. The Peace of Paris happened, showing that Great Britain had won over France in battles at sea, in the Americas, and India. But, at the same time, this victory caused problems for Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal with the people who had settled in the Americas. These difficulties led to a process called settler decolonization, starting in British North America and spreading to other places.

Also, Wallerstein explains that the French government faced a challenge in solving its financial issues. Unlike the British, who gained wealth through events like the Plassey plunder, the French could not resort to similar means. As a result, the French state was politically unable to address its fiscal problems through new taxes. To find a solution, they agreed to the Anglo-French Commercial (Eden) Treaty of 1786. The French king accepted this treaty, thinking it would bring in new sources of state revenue. However, the immediate outcome was not positive; it turned out to be economically disastrous and caused political unrest. The Cahiers de doléance, which were lists of grievances, were filled with complaints about this treaty.

At the end of this section, he talks about how the French Revolution did not go well for France in its struggle with Britain. Instead of helping France get stronger, the revolution made things worse. Also, the wars created a gap between France and Britain in making things for the world markets. By 1815, Britain was much better at making things efficiently for the world compared to France.

The second section is called “Ideological Transformation”;

Wallerstein thinks there is something important for all of us to notice and maybe feel good about, even though it is a bit unclear. They believe that the French Revolution and the time when Napoleon was in charge caused a big change in how people think in the world's economic system. This change led to the creation of three new important areas or sets of cultural institutions that have been a big part of how the world works ever since.

Wallerstein talks about how people saw the French Revolution at the time. It was a big and intense period from 1789 (when the Bastille fell) to 1794. During this time, a lot was going on – the Great Fear, getting rid of "feudalism," taking over church lands, executing a king, and declaring the Rights of Man. All this led to a scary time called the Reign of Terror, which ended with something called the Thermidorian Reaction. But the drama did not stop there. Napoleon came into power, and French armies spread across Europe. At first, in many places, people saw them as bringing revolutionary ideas. But later on, in some areas, they were rejected because people thought they were pushing French imperialism.

At the end of the essay, he talks about how the French Revolution changed things. On one side, it made the world more modern, with a strong desire for change and progress. It is like the revolution broke through a cultural barrier, speeding up global changes. But, on the other side, the same revolution created new things like ideologies, social sciences, and movements. These things ended up controlling and distorting the process of change, causing blockages that people have noticed a lot in the last twenty years.

A slogan: liberty, equality, fraternity. They say that people usually thought liberty and equality were opposites. Wallerstein believes the French Revolution did not bring liberty or equality because those in power said they were different things. The idea was that making the world more similar would bring harmony, but it turned out the capitalist world economy made differences bigger. The French Revolution did not change France much, but it impacted the world. He says we are not sure about the global legacy of the French Revolution, and after 1968, we need to rethink what the popular movements during the French Revolutionary turmoil meant.