jim.shamlin.com

1: The Progress of Democratic Beliefs after the Revolution

Ideas that are firmly established in men's minds can be influential for several generations, and those of the revolution are no exception. While the life of the revolution as a government was short, its influence is long-lived. They became a sort of religious beliefs that have profoundly influenced the culture.

Gradual Propagation of Democratic Ideas

Generally, the influence of the French revolution can be felt in the present day. The notion of the rights of the people has been a profound influence on cultural thought. So while the military work of Napoleon was shortly undone, the principles which he helped to propagate have survived.

At the time of the revolution, the ideals had only begun to spread: they had seized the conscience of a sufficient number of people to stir them to dramatic action, but the majority remained indifferent. That is to say that the vast majority of the French at the time of the revolution were not believers, but bystanders.

The revolution itself, like any armed conflict, was a desperate attempt on the part of those who had embraced the philosophy to impose it on others who were not as quick to adopt them. The Jacobins believed in evolution, but did not trust in fate to effect it, and so attempted to force its hand. This is not uncommon, and many rebels and revolutionaries are simply impatient.

The seeds of revolution were sown long before it sprouted, and Le Bon names a number of "dreamers" who, decades before the revolution, were already advocating for its principles. The philosophers are first discovered by the intellectuals of a society, then the evidence spreads to the gentry, then the bourgeoisie, and finally the working classes.

Those who would uphold a principle, and design a society accordingly, are faced with a choice as to whether to use reason or mysticism as the basis for their designs. The two are opposed, as "no religious or moral belief ever had rational logic as its basis." And so, a system of beliefs based on reason must become a religion in order to spread.

For that reason it cannot be said that the philosophers or intellectuals caused the revolution - they merely inspired it. Others took fragments of their ideas, as many religious persons adopt fragments of scripture, and built a religion around it. It was only then that it would be able to spread to the lower ranks of society.

The Unequal Influence of the Fundamental Principles of the Revolution

The philosophy of the revolution is best summed up in its three principles: liberty, equality, and fraternity. Of the three, only equality seems to have had a significant impact.

However, it must first be considered what these words actually meant at the time they were uttered. History reinterprets things to correlate to the theme of the story that is being told - which is to say that history changes the meaning of the terms to its liking.

So, of the three, only equality remains, and the principle of equality under the law has been steadfastly maintained in principle, though in practice privilege and prejudice are still evident it is generally reserved for certain individuals rather than entire strata of society. The notion that no man is innately better than others is a principle that pervades culture, not merely politics.

A pause to mention the socialists, who take the concept a bit to far: men are not equal in every means, as they have different physical and mental abilities, and their inequality of ability and the inequality of effort they are willing to expend naturally gives way to economic inequalities. To object or interfere with that is to struggle against reason itself.

Democracy: Theoretical and Practical

Any idea that causes a change in the world of men are subject to two processes.

  1. Dissemination - The ideas must spread slowly, from their point of origin to a sufficient number of people whose participation is necessary to implement and support them
  2. Evolution - It is rare for an idea to be accepted in its pure form, but instead each person modifies it to make it more palatable to himself, and then modifies it again to make it more palatable to others.

An idea that is not disseminated cannot have any impact on the world of men, and one that does not evolve is more likely to be rejected and ignored than accepted and practiced.

As such, the written statement of a doctrine often represents the most negligible side of that doctrine - it is a historical document of what the ideas meant to the author of the document, and has little to do with the way that the ideas are understood by those who put them into practice.

And so, when we speak of "democracy" and consider the historical texts in which men documented their notion of what it means, this is something entirely different to considering the behavior of men, which is a more accurate indicator of their psychology.

When we look to books and journals as historical documents, we must recognize that what we are consuming are "purely the theories of literary people" who were very often unknown or ignored by their contemporaries. Even in instances where a writer was popular in his own time, his writing is merely a suggestion made to others - and per the rule of evolution, his reader modified what he read, accepting some parts and rejecting others, in determining how to react.

The notion of an idea being adopted as conceived is particularly absurd when the idea is democracy, which takes it as premise that each person will decide what he wishes to support. To demand that he support the ideas of another without any modification is not democracy, but tyranny - and as such the democracy as described by the intellectuals cannot be maintained in practice, or else it would not be democratic.

In practice, democracy aims to gauge the will of the people - it rejects the idea of fraternity because fraternity requires the subordination of himself to the will of others in order to gain their acceptance. It is, in effect, a bloodless conflict among the various factions of a society to subordinate the minority to the will of the majority.

To the intellectual, democracy is about peace and harmony; to the practical man, it is about conflict and domination. No alliance can possibly exist between these two perspective - and it was always so. Even from Plato to modern times, democracy has never been defined by the great thinkers, but by the masses.

Natural Inequalities

There has never been an acceptable reconciliation of the notion of democratic equality to natural equality.

Nature does not know such a thing as equality - and distributes capabilities unevenly. Some people are smarter, healthier, more beautify, and more industrious than others - and as a consequence gain superiority over their fellows. No theory can alter these discrepancies, nor prevent these inequalities from resulting in further inequality among men.

A few theorists have believed for a long time that education might effect a general leveling. We can observe that an individual's knowledge is highly influential in the outcomes he is able to achieve. But many years of experience have shown that education does not create men of equal knowledge, as it can plainly be seen that some students grasp concepts and retain knowledge more effectively than others - even if they are exposed to the same teachings.

And neither is it intelligence alone that leads a man to become prosper. To individuals of equal intelligence will fare differently is one is more industrious or frugal than the other - and if he is both, the rate at which he rises above those who lack the same qualities is accelerated.

The specific example is given of the Chinese immigrants to the United States, who are not particularly more intelligent or industrious than their European counterparts - but whose lifestyles are frugal, and as such they are willing to work for a much lower wage, which makes it difficult for European immigrants to compete in the labor market. The power of this frugality is such that the US has forbidden the immigration of Chinese workers.

In Le Bon's time, the Socialist party was based on the absurd notion that the work of nature could be undone: that by any means it would be possible to make a society of true equals, none any better in any regard than his fellows. They are horrified by nature itself, whose course is to endow men with characteristics that lead them to excel, and rid itself by extinction of those whose characteristics lead to failure.

That is to say, the course of nature is to reward with prosperity those who are superior and punish with extinction those who are inferior. The socialists wish to entirely reverse this course of nature: to destroy those whose natural talents are best fitted to survival and reward those whose natural talents are lacking.

In this regard, their take of democracy takes as its premise that there are a greater number among mankind whose natural talents and proclivities are inferior. Were this so, humanity would not have survived this long as a species.

The notion of equality is also hostile to social progress. Science and industry are driven to progress by the efforts of an exceptionally talented few - and in that sense it is the natural proclivity for a species to be led by its best, not by the mediocre, and certainly not by its failures. But the very foundation of socialism is "an intense hatred" for any who are capable of excellence.