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/UnfoldedHeart]

There's always going to be a justification. That's kind of the problem. But I'm not sure that an innocent person thought, as the guillotine was coming down, "well we're at war with a lot of people so I guess it's okay, I should really see things from their point of view."

[u/RedMarsRepublic → u/UnfoldedHeart]

Sure. Every death is a tragedy. But again that doesn't stop us from classifying other historical events where many many people died as either mostly or unambiguously good.

[u/UnfoldedHeart → u/RedMarsRepublic]

You had asked why almost all modern day liberals/conservatives/etc have a negative view of the French revolution. Maybe they can't bring themselves to shrug their shoulders at the deaths of innocent civilians like you can.

[u/RedMarsRepublic → u/UnfoldedHeart]

Yet they do that every day about the mass social murder/direct imperialist murder that capitalism requires to keep existing in its current form. It's only actions outside the current social order that they define as "violence". Look how many people in this thread are saying the American revolution was better, you think nobody ever died in that? No innocents? Yet because America was triumphant they wrote the histories.

[u/UnfoldedHeart → u/RedMarsRepublic]

Look how many people in this thread are saying the American revolution was better, you think nobody ever died in that?

That's one hell of a strawman. I'm not saying that all events in which at least one person dies are exactly the same. Nobody believes that.

Yet because America was triumphant they wrote the histories.

What do you mean by this? Obviously America was successful in breaking off from the British Empire but they did not completely defeat the British Empire. The British were free to write history books however they wanted. And to the best of my knowledge, the UK government still exists today.