3: Conflict Between Traditions and Revolutionary Principles
The Psychological Causes of Continued Revolutionary Movements
The ideals of the revolution are often taken as granted, though it is likely that the revolution in though preceded the revolution in action, and spread at a much slower pace.
Le Bon reckons that it likely required more than fifty years for the notion to spread through the various strata of society. It is also likely that the people at the time of the revolution were unaware of the ideals, and a great many may have rejected them - the notion of liberty, equality, and fraternity likely permeated French culture after the revolution rather than before it.
The history of political upheavals should prove that men are governed by their mentalities more than the domination of other men, a fact that has been realized only within the past few centuries of human history. No leader has ever had sufficient might to compel an entire nation against their will without paving the way to his own downfall.
Considered thus, the turbulent years of the revolution were evidence of struggles between portions of the nation whose mentalities were different: the vast majority opposed the rule of a monarch, but had differing ideas about what ought to replace it. This disagreement precipitated a great deal of strife, and the inability to come to an agreement necessitated much violence in an attempt of one faction to impose its will upon others.
The struggle between incompatible mentalities was plainly manifested from the start of the revolution: the act itself is a struggle between the established regime and those that wanted to replace it, but the insurgents were not of the same mind. So instead, each political camp had its own agenda, and were never in agreement. They put their differences aside to overthrow the monarchy, and resumed their squabbling immediately afterward.
Bonaparte's main task in assuming power was resolving these conflicts, which he did by merely taking control upon himself and removing the ability of the factions to pursue their own interests. This could not be done in an arbitrary manner, but required skill in devising a solution that was acceptable to all, at least to such degree that their dissatisfaction would give rise to little more than grumbling. By so doing, he was able to effect a unity of principle and purpose for France, but only so long as he retained control: as soon as Bonaparte fell from power, the old parties reemerged.
The heart of the problem is not disagreement, but intolerance. Two parties may disagree, but can work out a compromise if they have some degree of tolerance. When there is intolerance, this is impossible - and one party may seek to impose its will upon another even in matters in which there are no common interests or reciprocal consequences. (EN: We see this echoed even in the present day, in which the demand of religious factions isn't merely to be left alone to practice their own religion, but to reach into the lives of other people and force their beliefs upon them.)
Historians of the revolution often considered the start of that revolution to be the beginning of modern France (at least in Le Bon's day) - but are coming to realize that it was merely the end of the old regime, and the modern regime did not commence until some years later, with "an epoch of black barbarism dominated by low superstitions" in between.
That is to say that a revolution is not completed when the old regime is overthrown, but only when a stable and lasting new regime has been effected - and in that sense France existed in an interim condition for many years between the former and latter events.
Le Bon speaks a bit of the French character, which has about it a strong sense of polarity: people of strong convictions regard others as friend or foe, with no other option. Anyone who does not fully support one's beliefs is an enemy, if only that their refusal to accept one's beliefs are an attack upon them. To be French is to be arrogant in one's beliefs and intolerant of anyone else's.
Summary of a Century's Revolutionary Movements in France
In the century since the old regime was overthrown, France seems to have been in constant chaos, with a series of successive revolutions.
(EN: There follows an account of the various rulers of France, which included a number of kings, a few emperors, and sundry other characters - the details are fairly granular and of no general interest to the psychology of revolution, except as an example of the way a group of people swings from one extreme to another in attempting to find a point of equilibrium.)
In summing up the century of little revolutions, it can be observed that it had been a struggle between the tyranny of individuals, which is weak and easy to overthrown, and the tyranny of collectives, which are a great deal more persistent. The collective tyranny is generally far more odious and capricious, which reflects the behavior of the revolutionary assemblies as previously described.
But what remains clear is that statism is the political system that seems to be favored by the people of Europe, who seem to prefer to have a strong ruler, even if he is tyrannical, over a more indefinite form of government. Regardless of whether it is democracy, republic, monarchy, or empire, the people seem to crave a villain and are not long satisfied by peace.