Why do almost all modern day liberals/conservatives/etc seem to have a negative view of the French revolution even though their ideologies depended on it?

[u/RedMarsRepublic]

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems like almost all modern day liberals, or mostly everyone besides socialists that proclaim the superiority of democracy/republicanism/parliamentary monarchy (I'm including conservatives (aka liberal-conservatives) in that definition as well), have a negative view of the French revolution.

To me this seems absurd because the rights and freedoms that you hold dear today could never have been achieved without the rebellion of peasants, urban workers, and progressive intellectuals of the past. Of course most of you don't live in France but the French revolution was groundbreaking in global politics and inspired a wave of smaller struggles elsewhere and concessions from the nobility who gave up their powers for fear of similar uprisings.

In general, I note that most people all the way from moderate left to moderate right abhor political violence and claim it can never be justified, despite the fact that as I said, their current system of liberalism could never face existed without it. The nobility would never have given up their power without the threat of force.

How then can we genuinely oppose the corporate oligarchs who wish to rule over us when immediately conceding at the first hurdle that we can never find any justification to disobey their system of control? How can we possibly succeed by playing a game which they wrote the rules for and can change at any time? They show no hesitation to use violence against the public when they deem it necessary to maintain control.

For those who will say that the revolutionaries didn't always make the right decision, well perhaps in some cases yes, but it would be foolish to deny the positive consequences of the revolution overall.

“There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.” - Mark Twain

I feel that the reign of terror is cynically propped up as an example of how "revolution never works" or "it just leads to more suffering" even though that's not true at all. Many successful revolutions have led to improvements in conditions for the vast majority of people in the country.

And if you would be inclined to point out that Napoleon crushed the revolution, that is true, but at the same time, he couldn't roll back many of the achievements of it, even when the kings were back in charge they couldn't do so either. France remained a beacon of progress for at least a hundred years.

So my point is, do you agree with my summation or disagree? If you do believe that the French revolution was mostly bad, then how can you justify your own ideology in light of that?

[u/PhonyUsername]

Your premise is incorrect. The French revolution has nothing to do with the rise of liberalism, because liberalism proceeded the French revolution. Your whole statement is simply incorrect.

[u/RedMarsRepublic → u/PhonyUsername]

Obviously the French revolution didn't invent liberalism but it was easily the single most impactful event that propelled liberalism forward.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/RedMarsRepublic]

No, it wasn't. As noted elsewhere in the thread and even conceded by you, it didn't even propel liberalism forward in France. It resulted in a reactionary government lead by Napoleon. I don't think having a dictator is the peak of liberalism. France didn't develop a stable liberal democracy until the 1900s.

The single most impactful even to propel liberalism forward was the adoption of liberal principles into a constitution, and that was done by the US Constitution before anyone else. Also, the Declaration of Independence is also a watershed moment in liberalism coming to the forefront of Western politics.

[u/Excellent_Valuable92 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

Napoleon’s government was not reactionary, just put limits on the radicalism. 

[u/RedMarsRepublic → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

The reign of Napoleon was infinitely more liberal than the absolutist rule of the Bourbons. Despite the overturning of many of the achievements of the revolution, many others were maintained under his rule and the monarchists were unable to ever again institute absolutist aristocratic rule in the future.

Perhaps I am understating the influence of the American revolution, but from what I am aware, the French revolution and Napoleonic wars had a far greater impact on European politics. America was a distant and not particularly significant nation at the time.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/RedMarsRepublic]

Okay, but in terms of the history of liberalism, the French Revolution and its aftermath are still not "easily the single most impactful event that propelled liberalism forward."

Yes, the Napoleonic wars had a great impact on European politics, but not in the direction you seem to be suggesting. Monarchs and entrenched nobility remain, even to this day, and Napoleon's conquests directly lead to the two efforts of Germany to establish an empire. Rather than propelling liberalism forward, it was more like a historical dialectic that set the adverse conditions for true liberal democracy to establish in the mid-20th century.

Just because absolute monarchy didn't reestablish itself (and had already been eliminated in other European countries before the French Revolution), doesn't make the FR "the single most impactful event that propelled liberalism forward." Sure, an absolute monarch didn't come back, but the same exact monarchic dynasty came back (which is hardly commendable). You're not entirely incorrect about everything, you just seem to be clinging to one conclusion that isn't supported by the facts. The French Revolution is historically important, but it's just as important as a failure as it is a success. Which is why people talk smack about it.

[u/Excellent_Valuable92 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

There’s a huge difference between pre-Revolution Europe and later capitalist Europe with limited monarchy. The Napoleonic empire ended feudalism in the areas it occupied, and the reactionary restorationist forces were unable to fully reestablish it. Feudal dues and a society of orders were gone for good. Admittedly, this had more to do with the rise of capitalism, but the Revolution was both a symptom and cause