4: The Role of the People In Revolutions
Stability and Malleability of the National Soul
Understanding a people requires considering their history. In theory, a revolutionary rejects the past - but it is the past, built slowly over the centuries, that formed the thoughts, sentiments, traditions, and prejudices of the national culture, which ultimately determine whether a revolution will be supported.
It has been established that the true rule of people is its culture, and that revolution is a solution to a government that has become hostile to the culture of the people. The revolutionary, therefore, must be supportive of culture - to propose a change that the people are ready to make, and which they would already have made but for the restraints of their government. Any revolution that does not support the culture of the people will fail.
This is not to say that culture is fixed - it is entirely malleable, albeit over a slow period of time. It is in many instances that a long-standing regime is overthrown because it fails to make the same changes as its subjects, but it was at one time supportive of the culture that existed, or it would not have been able to remain in power for so long.
Living species, which includes humanity, become extinct when they fail to change as necessary for their survival when the environment shifts. We exist by adaptation of our behavior, and society changes as the aggregate of changes made by individuals. As such, any society must effect a sustainable balance between stability and change. Governments are overthrown when they interfere with that stability - possibly by inciting unnecessary change, but more often by preventing necessary change from occurring.
Stability is acquired very slowly: the Roman Empire took several centuries to form a "national soul" and have an identity as not merely a political structure but a nation of men who supported the same value. The same empire perished when it became too rigid, preventing that culture from evolving.
The souls of nations are very different. France and England have distinctly different cultures and what is an acceptable way of life for the French is rejected by the English. And as such each nation has their own ideals for the way in which government and the people should relate to one another. The ideals of the French Revolution resounded with the people of France - but would be rejected by the people of England, Italy, Russia, China, Egypt, or any other nation.
A passage quoted from a historian: "While the Frenchman despised his government, detested his clergy, hated the nobility, and revolted against the laws, the Englishman was proud of his religion, his aristocracy, his House of Lords."
Le Bon also looks to the South American nations of his time, notoriously unstable, and reckons that this is because they were a people without a stable culture. These nations consist of half-castes, savages who were only recently dragged against their will into membership in a society of other tribes, governed by those who brought values from established nations to a people whose culture was different. It is only natural that they are struggling to define their national identity, though it may be more accurate to say they are struggling "with" it, with the notion of being a nation at all.
He mentions a few examples of provinces that were passed from the government of one foreign power to that of another, and how this often results in revolution when the people are dissatisfied with the conditions of life and reconsider their culture.
The Philippines strikes him as an oddity, but this may be due to the neglect of its former ruler (Spain) and the practical benefits bestowed by its new (America). Under American rule, the nation was transformed: Spain had done little to change it from a jungle filled with miserable people who lived in conditions of poverty. The Americans drained the swamps, laid rails, built factories and schools, and eliminated malaria, yellow fever, and cholera - in light of which the native population was caused to reconsider whether their standing culture had been at all desirable.
This underscores the importance of culture: so long as a culture supports the welfare of the people, it will be maintained and accepted, as will the regime derived from a functional culture. When a culture is destructive of the welfare of the people, it will not be accepted, and the regime that imposes it will be overturned when the people embrace what they believe to be a newer and more sustainable culture.
How the People Regard Revolution
The part of "the people" as an aggregated mass in revolution, tends to follow the same pattern: they are not particularly enamored, or even knowledgeable, of the rationale behind a revolution - they merely take action initiated by others when their personal welfare is unsatisfactory.
This is not to say the ideals of a revolution are unimportant, merely that they are not considered. The leaders of a revolution are motivated by their ideals, and use them to rally others. But those whom they rally are not as thoughtful or cognizant - they may not know or understand the ideals except in a vague sort of way that leads them to believe that the practical outcome of a revolution will effect a positive change for them in a functional way.
The protestant revolution exemplifies this fact: the leaders had very specific spiritual ideals that they wanted to achieve. Their followers recognized only that the revolution would remove a hindrance (the mandates of the church) to their pursuit of worldly pleasures.
The French revolution likewise had leaders who recognized the corruption inherent to monarchy and totalitarianism and a belief that the common man was better equipped to see to his own needs and interact with others on a basis of mutual respect. The followers were mostly peasants and laborers, unsophisticated and illiterate, who merely believed that supporting the revolution would end their oppression by the existing regime.
It is for the most part posturing and propaganda for a follower to claim to be motivated by the ideals of the revolution. Question them, and they will be unable to describe or explain the ideals in an accurate or consistent fashion. They are more concerned with lower motives, and philosophy is of no interest to them.
This is also the reason that revolution is invariably succeeded by a period of disillusionment, as people recognize that the new way of things does not in fact give support to their true motivations. The overthrow of the French monarchy failed to provide the people with an endless supply of bread, and there was still the necessity of the plow, scythe, mill, and oven to achieve their desires.
The degree to which the disillusionment dissipates or remains determines how quickly the masses resign themselves to the new regime. If they accept that their assumptions were unreasonable, they settle into their "new" lives (which is largely doing the same as before) and accept the new regime. If they believe their assumptions were reasonable, and are not fulfilled, they become restless and begin accumulating dissatisfaction that will lead to the support of the next revolution.
The Alleged Part if the People During Revolution
Crowd psychology demonstrates that people do not act in numbers without a leader, and that they generally do not consider the purpose of their action but follow in a mindless state - regardless of what they profess to have been their motivations before or afterward.
Those who concern themselves with ideals are seldom men of action, and this it follows that the leaders of revolution who guide the actions rather than the thoughts of men are often not very intellectual. To them, the ideals that serve as the incentive to revolt are merely excuses for taking action, and propaganda to encourage the actions of others.
The crowd that is roused by a leader has much the same character: the ideals, which they vaguely understand, form an excuse for taking action and a justification for behavior after the fact.
A great many sociologists and historians are deluded about this, and proclaim that the people who supported a revolt were cognizant and supportive of its ideals. Simply stated, this is an error at best. Popular motivation is not the achievement of an ideal, but is driven by a baser motive - to escape a disadvantageous situation or achieve an advantageous one, based on personal interests.
The notion of "national unity" is coincidence rather than philosophy. People who band together to achieve a common goal do not consider whether there is a common motivation, but collaborate out of convenience for the sake of achieving practical ends. These ends, in revolution, are the destruction of an existing regime, seldom with a thought of what will be constructed in its wake.
Consider, again, the protestant revolution. It was not a united movement that established a consolidated protestant church, but a gangly band of groups that each had their own agenda. The only thing they had in common was their opposition to the Catholic regime, and a desire to depose it. As a result, the protestant church never formed as a untied body, but remains fractured into a multitude of denominations that have become more disparate rather than more united in the aftermath of the revolution.
The same can be witnessed of the French revolution, which resulted not in one united nation but squabbling factions, each seeking to overpower the others and accomplish the goals which drove it to give support to the functional objective of overthrowing the monarchy.
(EN: But here, Le Bon has switched to the functional leadership of the revolution. The people merely went back to their lives - the farmer to his fields and the merchants to his shop - while the functional leaders squabbled over power in the new regime. However, I do have a sense that those who seek leadership after a revolution are often different to those who practiced leadership during it, which may be something Le Bon considers in a later chapter.)
The Popular Entity and its Elements
When theoreticians speak of "the people" they are creating a mystical entity, endowed with the virtues and pardoned of vices, and one which may be described in any terms they wish to use to make sense of actions after the fact. Each historian includes certain incidents and details and chooses to ignore others to fashion "the people" to conform to his theories.
Revolution is violence, and includes many violent acts. Those involved will commit the most horrific cruelties, not only upon those they perceive to be their enemy, but anyone in their path. In recounting the events, the historian will glorify some and vilify others, even though their behavior had been exactly the same, by choosing which events and details and even to add fictional elements to what is essentially an imaginary story.
It is mentioned that in the political arena, socialists and collectivists often do the same: they refer to "society" in whatever manner best supports their agenda - including, ignoring, and fabricating the facts to make a plausible case for doing whatever they wish.
The "mysterious fetish" of the people can be divided into two categories:
- The majority of people who are largely unconcerned with the affairs of others, but who quietly go about their own lives in "laborious silence" in their profession of peasants and workers of all sorts, who generally need stability and who are only roused by interference in their personal affairs
- A subversive and vocal minority of people who are also concerned with their own interests, but who see other men as the means by which their interests can be served.
In essence, the peasant farmer who seeks to raise crops to feed his family falls into the first category. The reprobate who wants food but does not wish to undertake the labor to provide it from himself falls into the second.
In times of political stability, the reprobates of the second class fall into two professions: criminal or politician. Both seek to serve their interests by exploiting other men rather than through productive labor, and are distinguished only by a mantle of legitimacy.
Reprobates are drawn to revolution because it offers them the promise of legitimacy: they can exercise their "evil instincts" without danger, and with the support of an organized force to help them in their exploitation.
The productive citizens are roused to rebellion only where this has occurred: when the reprobates have exploited them to such a degree that production is not possible, or when the rewards of production are confiscated from them, to a degree that they cannot bear the loss.
As such, productive citizens are drawn to revolution because it offers them protection from those who would exploit them, and they imagine the establishment of a society in which they can practice their trade and pursue their goals without interference.
Of the two, the reprobate is most commonly attracted to the idea of a revolution. The productive man does not need the involuntary cooperation of others to sustain himself and accomplish his goals. And as such, revolutions that protect the interests of the productive members of society are rare - and because those of the reprobate are not in the common interests of the people, they tend to be short-lived.
He again cites a number of historical incidents that demonstrate the barbarism of revolutions, in actions that are not merely the misconduct of a few sadistic soldiers but are carried out under orders from the leaders of the new regime.
But more significantly, consider that there seems invariably to be a hostile relationship between a people and their government, which arises when reprobates come to power and seek to exploit the population, most of whom find the new regime to be no less objectionable, exploitative, and corrupt than the one it replaced.