Kitchen of revolution. French revolution

Tony Rocky

“It’s too early to say,” responded China’s first premier, Zhou Enlai, when asked about the significance of the French Revolution.

Can we state that it is also too early for us to say anything about the significance of the Russian revolution? 2017 is the centenary of the Russian Revolution. This topic will give rise to many discussions, debates, conferences, and the publication of many books and articles. By the end of the year, will we understand more about the meaning of the revolution or should we admit that we have a huge job ahead of us, which is to study and comprehend all the complexities of the Russian revolution?

The question of the significance of the Russian Revolution occupy a special place in my thoughts. For 44 years, living in Canada, I have been studying the pre-revolutionary history of the Russian Empire: from the abolition of serfdom in 1861 to the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II and the February Revolution in 1917. I have also been studying the period from the February Revolution to the October Revolution and the Civil War. Almost 40 years ago, I wrote my master's thesis about judicial reform 1864 and about the political processes of the Narodniks and Narodnaya Volya. There were times when I wanted to give up my studies, but I could not tear myself away from studying one of the most difficult periods in European history.

Over the past three years, thanks to meeting new Russian and European friends and colleagues on social networks, I started with new strength deeply study this period and its place in European history. In October 2016, I read in a Viennese scientific institute lecture on political terrorism in the Russian Empire. Listeners learned that many events and trends in pre-revolutionary Russia preceded various events and trends in modern Europe and therefore the topic of the lecture is of great relevance. I continue my research on terrorism, but currently main topic the period under study “the Black Hundred movement in the Russian Empire.” I also study other political and social movements, including national and religious ones.

This series of articles is an experience in comparative studies. I take a comparative approach to determine the significance of the Russian Revolution in the pan-European history of revolutions and counter-revolutions. The comparative approach does not diminish the significance and uniqueness of the Russian revolution. On the contrary, it helps us to trace more deeply the elements of continuity and change, similarities and differences between revolutions and counter-revolutions, starting with the French Revolution.

The comparison of the French and Russian revolutions had a certain influence on the course of events between February and October in Russia. After all, the French Revolution was exemplary for Russian revolutionaries. They often saw the events of their revolution through the prism of the French Revolution. Russian revolutionaries in 1917 were haunted by memories of counter-revolution. Fear of an inevitable repetition of this phenomenon in Russia. Paradoxically, the relatively easy overthrow of the tsarist regime led the revolutionaries to believe that the possibility of a counter-revolution was almost natural.

Of course, Russian revolutionaries were afraid of the restoration of the Romanov dynasty. Memories of the unsuccessful Varennes escape of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in 1791 surfaced before them. That is why they took harsh measures against Nicholas and Alexandra to prevent a repeat of the Varennes escape.

The specter of a peasant counter-revolution in Russia troubled Russian socialists when they remembered peasant revolt in the Vendee department in 1793-1794. Under the leadership of the nobles, the Vendean peasants rebelled for the king and the church, killing many supporters of the revolution. In Russia, according to revolutionaries, it was possible to repeat the “Russian Vendée” on the lands of the Don and Kuban Cossacks.

Russian revolutionaries recalled that Napoleon Bonaparte put an end to the French Revolution. It was not difficult for them to assume that General Lavr Kornilov was like the “Napoleon of the Russian soil.” Comparisons with the French Revolution continued among Soviet communists after the end of the Civil War.

Vladimir Lenin proclaimed the New Economic Policy (NEP) in March 1921, with the restoration of private property and entrepreneurship. For many Soviet communists, the NEP was the Soviet version of Thermidor (the month in 1794 when Maximilian Robespierre and his Jacobin comrades were overthrown and executed by their opponents). The word "Thermidor" became synonymous with a departure from revolutionary principles and betrayal of the revolution. It is understandable why many communists saw the first Five Year Plan and collectivization as an opportunity to finish what they started in 1917.

So, Russian revolutionaries made comparisons with the French Revolution and the February Revolution until the end of the NEP. However, in scientific research the comparative approach was out of the question under the Soviet regime. Even the names “Great French Bourgeois Revolution” and “Great October Socialist Revolution” excluded the possibility of tracing elements of continuity and similarities. Between the bourgeois and socialist revolution there could only be changes and differences. Even in a massive collective work dedicated to the centenary of the European revolutions of 1848-1849, the authors did not give even a small positive assessment revolutions. The authors accused the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie of betraying the revolution and emphasized that only the Great October Socialist Revolution, under the leadership of the Lenin-Stalin Bolshevik Party, could bring liberation to the working people.

Since the thirties some Western historians are engaged in a comparative approach to the study of European revolutions. This approach is sometimes controversial because some historians criticize proponents of the approach for simplifying, ignoring unique factors, or diminishing the significance of great revolutions (especially the French Revolution). The first major study of the comparative approach came from the pen of Harvard historian Crane Brinton in 1938. The study, Anatomy of a Revolution, was reprinted several times and became a university textbook. Brinton gave a comparative analysis of four revolutions - English (more often called the English Civil War), American (War of Independence), French and Russian.

Brinton defined these four revolutions as democratic and popular revolutions the majority of the population against the minority. According to the historian, these revolutions led to the formation of new revolutionary governments. The American historian stated that all these revolutions went through certain stages of development:

1. Crisis of the old regime: the inherent political and economic shortcomings of governments; alienation and retreat of intellectuals from power (for example, the intelligentsia in the Russian Empire); class conflicts; formation of coalitions of dissatisfied elements; the inept ruling elite loses confidence in governing. As Vladimir Lenin wrote: “A revolutionary situation occurs when the masses not only no longer want to live in the old way, but also when ruling classes can no longer govern in the old way”;

2. Power of moderate elements and the emergence of divisions among moderates. Their inability to govern the country (liberals in the first years after the French Revolution in Russia after the February Revolution);

3. Power of extremist elements(Jacobins in France and Bolsheviks in Russia);

4. Reign of Terror and Virtue. They combine violence against real and imaginary opponents and the creation of a new morality;

5. Thermidor or the cooling of revolutionary fever (in France - the Directory, the Consulate and the Empire of Napoleon; in Russia - the NEP).

One can argue in many ways with Brinton in his choice of revolutions for comparison, for insufficient attention to the characteristics of each revolution. He tried to trace elements of continuity and change, elements of similarities and differences in revolutions.

A detailed comparative approach, more briefly, was developed over many years by the American historian Robert Palmer and the French historian Jacques Godechaux. They studied revolutions in Europe and America from 1760 to 1800. and came to the conclusion that these revolutions had so many similarities that one can talk about the “century of democratic revolution” or the “Atlantic revolution” (revolutions took place in Europe and the Americas). Palmer and Godechaux's concept of a general wave of revolutions at the end of the 18th century was called the Palmer-Gaudeschaux thesis.

For Palmer and Godechaux, revolution late XVIII centuries were democratic revolutions, but not in modern understanding democracy. Especially when it comes to universal suffrage. These revolutions began as movements with greater participation of representatives of society in the government of the country. The usual forms of government throughout Europe were monarchies ranging from constitutional to absolutist. Various corporate institutions, such as parliaments and meetings of class representatives, collaborated with monarchs. All these legislative institutions were closed organizations of hereditary elites. Proponents of change advocated greater participation of public representatives in legislative institutions. The softening or abolition of class privileges was usually seen as a transformation of the rights to participate in the affairs of the country.

So, people who were excluded from participating in government wanted to build political life in a new way. Supporters of change were often from the middle strata, but calling these revolutions “bourgeois” as a necessary stage in the development of capitalism is not only simplistic, but also ahistorical. (One may doubt the existence of the bourgeoisie as a class with full class consciousness in this period, especially during the early stage of the industrial revolution). Political ferment often began among the nobility, especially when absolutist monarchs tried to limit noble class privileges. The French Revolution began as a revolt of the noble class against centralization and restrictions on privileges. The phenomenon is quite natural because the nobility was in charge political class in all European countries.

Tony Rocchi - M.A. in History (Toronto, Canada), especially for

My " brilliant idea Former Manchester United and French national team player Eric Cantona suggested to fans in a November interview with Presse Océan magazine about the fight against the existing system.

Answering a question about the pension reform and public disagreement with it, he said that protests are not suitable in the current situation. “Instead of going out into the street and walking for kilometers (at demonstrations and rallies), you can go to the bank in your locality and withdraw your money,” he suggested. The algorithm of actions is simple. “The entire political system is built on banking power. And if there are 20 million people who are ready to take their money from the banks, then the system will collapse: without weapons and without blood. And then they will listen to us,” the footballer explained. “Three million, ten million people - and this is a real threat. And then there will be a real revolution. A revolution brought about by banks,” he added.

Canton's call to withdraw money from banks in a matter of days caused a great resonance not only at home, in France, but throughout the world. And through the Internet, the action plan spread to other European countries.

Belgian Geraldine Feyen and Frenchman Jan Sarfati created the website bankrun2010.com in support of Canton's idea. There is a group on Facebook called "December 7th We're All Going to Take Our Money Out of the Banks."

According to the French Midi Libre, on the eve of the X-day, more than 38 thousand network users confirmed their desire to take part in this action, and another 30 thousand said that they might join the activists. Residents of the United Kingdom, where Cantona still remains the king of football, responded especially zealously to the footballer’s call.

In France there are about 9 thousand like-minded people on the Facebook page “ Revolution! On 12/07 Let’s go everyone to withdraw our money!"("Revolution! 7/12 we will take our money") they say that they will withdraw money from their accounts. “The banks always hit us when we're already on the ground. Let’s hit them too, emptying our accounts,” calls one of the Facebook pages.

Eric Cantona himself also followed his advice. According to boursier.com, the former Manchester United striker actually contacted the local branch of BNP Paribas bank on Tuesday, where he keeps his savings, asking for the opportunity to withdraw money. However, the bank only confirmed that he was going to withdraw an amount exceeding 1,500 euros.

However, not everyone supports the football player. Opponents of the draft remind us that “for this game to be fun, you need to belong to the middle class and have a fairly large account, albeit not as large as Mr. Cantona.” “What to do with the money withdrawn? Put them under the mattress? Or put them in a tax haven? – others are interested, calling the football player’s call “simple pathos.”

At the same time, as the French Le Point writes, “a lively debate between bank leaders, their most loyal lawyer Christine Lagarde (French Economy Minister) and Eric Cantona proves that the threat to take away the deposits of French citizens from banks is the only thing that can scare the financial system."

Earlier, Christine Lagarde, in a not very polite manner, sent Eric Cantona “to play ball on the football field.” “This is not only contempt for the eminent football player, but also ignorance, a desire not to take into account the reality that all citizens face when they have banking difficulties,” one of the deputies of the French parliament explained to the newspaper.

)
July Monarchy (-)
Second Republic (-)
Second Empire (-)
Third Republic (-)
Vichy mode (-)
Fourth Republic (-)
Fifth Republic (c)

French revolution(fr. Revolution franchise), often referred to as the "Great", is a major transformation of the social and political systems of France that occurred in the late 18th century, resulting in the demolition of the Ancien Régime. It began with the capture of the Bastille in 1789, and various historians consider its end to be the coup of 9 Thermidor, 1794, or the coup of 18 Brumaire, 1799. During this period, France for the first time became a republic of theoretically free and equal citizens from an absolute monarchy. The events of the French Revolution had a significant impact on both France itself and its neighbors, and many historians consider this revolution to be one of the major events in the history of Europe.

Causes

In terms of its socio-political structure in the 18th century, it was an absolute monarchy, based on bureaucratic centralization and a standing army. Nevertheless, between the royal power, which was completely independent of the ruling classes, and the privileged classes, there was a kind of alliance - for the refusal of the clergy and nobility from political rights, the state power protected with all its strength and all the means at its disposal social privileges these two classes.

Until some time, the industrial bourgeoisie put up with royal absolutism, in whose interests the government also did a lot, taking great care of “national wealth,” that is, the development of manufacturing and trade. However, it turned out to be increasingly difficult to satisfy the desires and demands of both the nobility and the bourgeoisie, who in their mutual struggle sought support from the royal power.

On the other hand, feudal exploitation increasingly armed the popular masses against itself, whose most legitimate interests were completely ignored by the state. In the end, the position of royal power in France became extremely difficult: every time it defended old privileges, it met with liberal opposition, which grew stronger - and every time new interests were satisfied, conservative opposition arose, which became more and more sharp.

Royal absolutism was losing credibility in the eyes of the clergy, nobility and bourgeoisie, among whom the idea was asserted that absolute royal power was a usurpation in relation to the rights of estates and corporations (Montesquieu's point of view) or in relation to the rights of the people (Rousseau's point of view). The Queen's Necklace scandal played some role in the isolation of the royal family.

Thanks to the activities of educators, of which the groups of physiocrats and encyclopedists are especially important, a revolution took place even in the minds of the educated part of French society. A mass passion for the democratic philosophy of Rousseau, Mably, Diderot and others appeared. The North American War of Independence, in which both French volunteers and the government itself took part, seemed to suggest to society that the implementation of new ideas was possible in France.

General course of events in 1789-1799

Background

After a number of unsuccessful attempts to get out of the predicament financial situation, Louis XVI announced in December that in five years he would convene the government officials of France. When Necker became minister for the second time, he insisted that the Estates General be convened in 1789. The government, however, did not have any specific program. At court they thought least of all about this, at the same time considering it necessary to make a concession to public opinion.

On August 26, 1789, the Constituent Assembly adopted the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” - one of the first documents of bourgeois-democratic constitutionalism, which appeared in the very center of feudal Europe, in the “classical” country of absolutism. The “old regime”, based on class privileges and the arbitrariness of those in power, was opposed to the equality of all before the law, the inalienability of “natural” human rights, popular sovereignty, freedom of opinion, the principle “everything is permitted that is not prohibited by law” and other democratic principles of revolutionary enlightenment, which have now become requirements of law and current legislation. The Declaration also affirmed the right of private property as a natural right.

-October 6, a March on Versailles took place to the residence of the king in order to force Louis XVI to authorize the decrees and Declaration, the approval of which the monarch had previously refused.

Meanwhile, the legislative activities of the Constituent National Assembly continued and were aimed at solving the country's complex problems (financial, political, administrative). One of the first to be carried out administrative reform: seneschalships and generalities were liquidated; The provinces were united into 83 departments with a single legal procedure. The policy of economic liberalism began to take hold: it was announced that all restrictions on trade would be lifted; Medieval guilds and state regulation of entrepreneurship were eliminated, but at the same time, workers' organizations - companionships - were prohibited (according to Le Chapelier's law). This law in France, having survived more than one revolution in the country, was in force until 1864. Following the principle of civil equality, the Assembly abolished class privileges, abolished the institution of hereditary nobility, noble titles and coats of arms. In July 1790 National Assembly completed church reform: bishops were appointed to all 83 departments of the country; all church ministers began to receive salaries from the state. In other words, Catholicism was declared the state religion. The National Assembly demanded that the clergy swear allegiance not to the Pope, but to the French state. Only half of the priests decided to take this step and only 7 bishops. The Pope responded by condemning the French Revolution, all the reforms of the National Assembly, and especially the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.”

In 1791, the National Assembly proclaimed the first written constitution in European history, approved by the national parliament. It was proposed to convene Legislative Assembly- a unicameral parliamentary body based on a high property qualification for elections. There were only 4.3 million “active” citizens who received the right to vote under the constitution, and only 50 thousand electors who elected deputies. Deputies of the National Assembly also could not be elected to the new parliament.

The king, meanwhile, was inactive. On June 20, 1791, he, however, tried to escape from the country, but was recognized at the border (Varenne) by a postal employee and returned to Paris, where he actually found himself in custody in his own palace (the so-called “Varenne crisis”).

On October 1, 1791, according to the constitution, the Legislative Assembly opened. This fact indicated the establishment of a limited monarchy in the country. For the first time at its meetings, the question of starting a war in Europe was raised, first of all, as a means of solving internal problems. The Legislative Assembly confirmed the existence of a state church in the country. But in general, his activities turned out to be ineffective, which, in turn, provoked French radicals to continue the revolution.

In conditions when the demands of the majority of the population were not met, society experienced a split, and a threat loomed over France foreign intervention, the state-political system based on a monarchical constitution was doomed to failure.

National Convention

• On August 10, about 20 thousand rebels surrounded the royal palace. His assault was short-lived, but bloody. Several thousand soldiers became heroes of the assault Swiss Guard, who, despite the betrayal of the king and the flight of the majority of the French officers, remained faithful to their oath and crown, they gave a worthy rebuff to the revolutionaries and all fell at the Tuileries. Napoleon Bonaparte, who was in Paris at that time, said that if the Swiss had had an intelligent commander, they would have destroyed the revolutionary crowd that attacked them. In Lucerne, Switzerland, stands the famous stone lion - a monument to courage and fidelity last defenders French throne. One of the results of this assault was the abdication of Louis XVI from power and the immigration of Lafayette.
• In Paris, on September 21, the national convention opened its meetings; Dumouriez repelled the Prussian attack at Valmy (September 20). The French went on the offensive and even began to make conquests (Belgium, the left bank of the Rhine and Savoy with Nice at the end of 1792). The National Convention was divided into three factions: the left-wing Jacobin-Montagnards, the right-wing Girondins and the amorphous centrists. There were no longer any monarchists in it. The Girondins argued with the Jacobins only on the issue of scale revolutionary terror.
• By decision of the Convention, citizen Louis Capet (Louis XVI) was executed for treason and usurpation of power on January 21.
• Vendée rebellion. To save the revolution, a Committee of Public Safety is created.
• June 10, arrest of the Girondins by the National Guard: establishment of the Jacobin dictatorship.
• On July 13, the Girondist Charlotte Corday stabs Marat with a dagger. The beginning of the Terror.

• During the siege of Toulon, which surrendered to the British, the young artillery lieutenant Napoleon Bonaparte especially distinguished himself. After the liquidation of the Girondins, Robespierre's contradictions with Danton and the extreme terrorist Hébert came to the fore.
• In the spring of the year, first Hébert and his followers, and then Danton, were arrested, tried by a revolutionary court and executed. After these executions, Robespierre no longer had rivals. One of his first measures was the establishment in France, by decree of the convention, of the veneration of the Supreme Being, according to the idea of ​​“civil religion” by Rousseau. The new cult was solemnly announced during a ceremony arranged by Robespierre, who played the role of high priest of the “civil religion.”
• The intensification of terror plunged the country into bloody chaos, which was opposed by units of the National Guard who launched the Thermidorian coup. Jacobin leaders, including Robespierre and Saint-Just, were guillotined and power passed to the Directory.

Thermidorian Convention and Directory (-)

After the 9th Thermidor, the revolution was by no means over, although in historiography long time There was a discussion as to what should be considered the Thermidorian coup: the beginning of the “descending” line of the revolution or its logical continuation? The Jacobin Club was closed, and the surviving Girondins returned to the Convention. The Thermidorians abolished the Jacobin measures of government intervention in the economy and eliminated the “maximum” in December 1794. The result was a huge increase in prices, inflation, and disruption of food supplies. The misfortunes of the lower classes were countered by the wealth of the nouveau riche: they feverishly profited, greedily used their wealth, unceremoniously flaunting it. In 1795, the surviving supporters of the Terror twice raised the population of Paris (12th Germinal and 1st Prairial) to the convention, demanding “bread and the constitution of 1793,” but the Convention pacified both uprisings with the help of military force and ordered the execution of several "last Montagnards". In the summer of that year, the Convention drew up a new constitution, known as the Constitution of the Year III. Legislative power was no longer entrusted to one, but to two chambers - the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of Elders, and a significant electoral qualification was introduced. Executive power was placed in the hands of the Directory - five directors elected by the Council of Elders from candidates nominated by the Council of Five Hundred. Fearing that the elections to the new legislative councils would give a majority to the opponents of the republic, the convention decided that two-thirds of the “five hundred” and “elders” would be taken from the members of the convention for the first time.

When this measure was announced, the royalists in Paris itself organized an uprising, in which the main participation belonged to sections that believed that the Convention had violated the “sovereignty of the people.” There was a rebellion on the 13th of Vendémière (October 5); the convention was saved thanks to the management of Bonaparte, who met the insurgents with grapeshot. On October 26, 1795, the Convention dissolved itself, giving way to councils of five hundred and elders And directories.

In a short time, Carnot organized several armies, into which the most active, most energetic people from all classes of society rushed. Those who wanted to defend their homeland, and those who dreamed of spreading republican institutions and democratic orders throughout Europe, and people who wanted military glory and conquests for France, and people who saw military service the best remedy to personally distinguish yourself and elevate yourself. Access to senior positions in the new democratic army was open to every capable person; a lot famous commanders came out at that time from the ranks of ordinary soldiers.

Gradually revolutionary army began to be used to seize territories. The Directory saw the war as a means of distracting society's attention from internal turmoil and as a way of raising money. To improve finances, the Directory imposed large monetary indemnities on the population of the conquered countries. The victories of the French were greatly facilitated by the fact that in neighboring regions they were greeted as liberators from absolutism and feudalism. At the head of the Italian army the directory placed young general Bonaparte, who in 1796-97. forced Sardinia to abandon Savoy, occupied Lombardy, took indemnities from Parma, Modena, the Papal States, Venice and Genoa and annexed part of the papal possessions to Lombardy, which was transformed into the Cisalpine Republic. Austria asked for peace. Around this time, in aristocratic Genoa, a democratic revolution, which turned it into the Ligurian Republic. Having finished with Austria, Bonaparte gave the directory advice to strike England in Egypt, where she was sent under his command military expedition. Thus, by the end of the revolutionary wars, France controlled Belgium, the left bank of the Rhine, Savoy and some part of Italy and was surrounded by a number of “daughter republics”.

But then a new coalition was formed against it from Austria, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey. Emperor Paul I sent Suvorov to Italy, who won a number of victories over the French and by the fall of 1799 had cleared all of Italy of them. When the external failures of 1799 added to the internal turmoil, the directory began to be reproached for having sent the most skillful commander of the republic to Egypt. Having learned about what was happening in Europe, Bonaparte hurried to France. On the 18th of Brumaire (November 9) a coup took place, as a result of which a provisional government was created of three consuls - Bonaparte, Roger-Ducos, Sieyès. This coup d'état is known as the 18th Brumaire and is generally considered the end of the French Revolution.

Religion in revolutionary France

The periods of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation were an era of upheaval for the Roman Catholic Church, however revolutionary era, which followed was even more tragic. This was due in large part to the fact that, despite the polemical rancor of Reformation theology, the opponents of the conflict of the 16th and 17th centuries still for the most part had much in common with the Catholic tradition. From a political point of view, the assumption on both sides was that the rulers, even if they opposed each other or the church, adhered to Catholic traditions. However, the 18th century saw the emergence of a political system and philosophical worldview that no longer took Christianity for granted, but in fact explicitly opposed it, forcing the Church to redefine its position more radically than it had done since the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century.

Notes

Literature

General histories of the revolution- Thiers, Minier, Buchet and Roux (see below), Louis Blanc, Michelet, Quinet, Tocqueville, Chassin, Taine, Cheret, Sorel, Aulard, Jaurès, Laurent (much has been translated into Russian);

• Manfred A. The Great French Revolution M., 1983.
• Mathiez A. French Revolution. Rostov-on-Don, 1995.
• Olar A. Political history of the French Revolution. M., 1938.
• Revunenkov V. G. Essays on the history of the Great French Revolution. 2nd ed. L., 1989.
• Revunenkov V. G. Parisian sans-culottes of the era of the Great French Revolution. L., 1971.
• Sobul A. From the history of the Great bourgeois revolution 1789-1794 and the revolution of 1848 in France. M., 1960.
• Kropotkin P. A. The Great French Revolution
• New History A. Ya. Yudovskaya, P. A. Baranov, L. M. Vanyushkina
• Tocqueville A. de. The old order and revolution Translated from French. M. Fedorova.

M.: Moscow Philosophical Foundation, 1997

• Furet F. Comprehension of the French Revolution., St. Petersburg, 1998.
• popular books by Carnot, Rambaud, Champion (“Esprit de la révolution fr.”, 1887), etc.;
• Carlyle T., “The French Revolution” (1837);
• Stephens, "History of fr. rev.";
• Wachsmuth, "Gesch. Frankreichs im Revolutionszeitalter" (1833-45);
• Dahlmann, "Gesch. der fr. Rev." (1845); Arnd, idem (1851-52);
• Sybel, "Gesch. der Revolutionszeit" (1853 et seq.);
• Häusser, “Gesch. der fr. Rev." (1868);
• L. Stein, "Geschichte der socialen Bewegung in Frankreich" (1850);
• Blos, "Gesch. der fr. Rev."; in Russian - op. Lyubimov and M. Kovalevsky.
• Current problems in studying the history of the Great French Revolution (materials of the “round table” on September 19-20, 1988). Moscow, 1989.
• Albert Soboul “The problem of the nation during the social struggle during the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century”
• Eric Hobsbawm Echo of the Marseillaise
• Tarasov A. N. Necessity of Robespierre
• Cochin, Augustin. Small people and revolution. M.: Iris-Press, 2003

Links

• “French Revolution” original text of the article from ESBE in wiki format, (293kb)
• The French Revolution. Articles from encyclopedias, chronicles of the revolution, articles and publications. Biographies of political figures. Cards.
• The Age of Enlightenment and the Great French Revolution. Monographs, articles, memoirs, documents, discussions.
• The French Revolution. Links to personalities of figures of the Great French Revolution, counter-figures, historians, fiction writers, etc. in scientific works, novels, essays and poems.
• Mona Ozuf. History of the revolutionary holiday
• Materials on the French Revolution on the official website of the French Yearbook

in topics
Armed Forces Science
Story	Gaul Middle Ages Absolutism The French Revolution

The 18th century is considered to be the century of the Great French Revolution. Overthrow of the monarchy revolutionary movement and vivid examples of terror eclipsed in their cruelty even the bloody events of the October Revolution of 1917. The French prefer to bashfully remain silent and in every possible way romanticize this period in their history. The French Revolution is difficult to overestimate. A striking example how the most bloodthirsty and scary beast, dressed in the robes of Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood, is ready to sink his fangs into anyone, and his name is Revolution.

Prerequisites for the start of the revolution: socio-economic and political crisis

Upon ascending the throne in 1774, he appointed Robert Turgot as Comptroller General of Finance, but a wide range of reforms proposed by this politician were rejected. The aristocracy strenuously clung to its privileges, and all extortions and duties fell heavily on the shoulders of the third estate, whose representatives in France numbered 90%.

In 1778, Turgot was replaced by Necker. He abolishes serfdom in the royal domains, torture during interrogations, and limits court expenses, but these measures were only a drop in the bucket. Absolutism did not allow capitalist relations to develop in society. Therefore the change economic formations was only a matter of time. There was a deepening economic crisis, expressed in rising prices in the absence of production growth. Inflation, which hit the poorest segments of the population hard, was one of the catalysts that spurred growth revolutionary sentiments in society.

The US War of Independence also set an excellent example, inspiring hope in the revolutionary-minded French. If we talk briefly about the Great French Revolution (and about the preconditions that were ripe), then we should also note the political crisis in France. The aristocracy considered itself located between a rock and a hard place - the king and the people. Therefore, she fiercely blocked all innovations that, in her opinion, threatened liberties and preferences. The king understood that at least something had to be done: France could no longer live in the old way.

Convocation of the Estates General on May 5, 1789

All three classes pursued their own goals and objectives. The king hoped to avoid economic collapse by reforming the tax system. The aristocracy wanted to maintain its position; it clearly did not need reforms. The common people, or the third estate, hoped that they would become the platform where their demands would finally be heard. Swan, crayfish and pike...

Fierce disputes and discussions, thanks to the enormous support of the people, were successfully resolved in favor of the third estate. Of the 1,200 parliamentary seats, 610, or the majority, went to representatives of the broad masses. And soon they had the opportunity to show their political strength. On June 17, at the ball arena, representatives of the people, taking advantage of the confusion and vacillation among the clergy and aristocracy, announced the creation of the National Assembly, vowing not to disperse until a Constitution was developed. The clergy and part of the nobles supported them. The Third Estate showed that it must be taken into account.

Storming of the Bastille

The start of the Great French Revolution was landmark event- storming of the Bastille. The French celebrate this day as National holiday. As for historians, their opinions are divided: there are skeptics who believe that there was no capture: the garrison itself voluntarily surrendered, and everything happened because of the frivolity of the crowd. We need to clarify some points right away. There was a capture, and there were victims. Several people tried to lower the bridge, and it crushed these unfortunate people. The garrison could resist, it had guns and experience. There was not enough food, but history knows examples heroic defenses fortresses.

Based on the documents, we have the following: from the Minister of Finance Necker to the deputy commandant of the Pujot fortress, everyone spoke out about the abolition of the Bastille, expressing the general opinion. The fate of the famous fortress-prison was predetermined - it would have been demolished anyway. But history doesn't know subjunctive mood: On July 14, 1789, the storming of the Bastille took place, marking the beginning of the French Revolution.

A constitutional monarchy

The determination of the people of France forced the government to make concessions. City municipalities were transformed into a commune - an independent revolutionary government. A new state flag was adopted - the famous French tricolor. The National Guard was led by de Lafayette, who became famous in the American War of Independence. The National Assembly began forming a new government and drafting a Constitution. On August 26, 1789, the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” was adopted - the most important document in the history of the French Revolution. It declared the fundamental rights and freedoms of the new France. Now everyone had the right to freedom of conscience and resistance to oppression. He could openly express his opinion and be protected from attacks on private property. Now everyone was equal before the law and had equal obligations to taxation. the French Revolution was expressed in every line of this progressive document. While most European countries continued to suffer from social inequality, generated by the remnants of the Middle Ages.

And although the reforms of 1789-1791 many things changed radically, the adoption of a law to suppress any uprising was directed against the poor. It was also forbidden to form unions and conduct strikes. The workers have been deceived again.

On September 3, 1891, a new Constitution was adopted. It gave the right to vote only to a limited number of representatives of the middle strata. A new Legislative Assembly was convened, whose members could not be re-elected. All this contributed to the radicalization of the population and the possibility of the emergence of terror and despotism.

Threat of external invasion and fall of the monarchy

England was afraid that with the adoption of advanced economic reforms, the influence of France would increase, so all efforts were thrown into preparing the invasion of Austria and Prussia. Patriotic French people supported the call to defend the Motherland. National Guard France advocated the removal of the king's power, the creation of a republic and the choice of a new national convention. The Duke of Brunswick issued a manifesto outlining his intentions: to invade France and destroy the revolution. After they learned about him in Paris, the events of the Great French Revolution began to develop rapidly. On August 10, the rebels went to the Tuileries and, having defeated the Swiss Guards, arrested the king's family. The illustrious persons were placed in the Temple fortress.

War and its impact on the revolution

If we characterize the Great French Revolution briefly, it should be noted that the mood in French society were an explosive mixture of suspicion, fear, mistrust and bitterness. Lafayette fled border fortress Longwy surrendered without a fight. Purges, arrests and mass executions began on the initiative of the Jacobins. The majority in the Convention were Girondins - they organized the defense and even won victories at first. Their plans were extensive: from liquidation Paris Commune before the capture of Holland. By that time, France was at war with almost all of Europe.

Personal disputes and squabbles, a drop in living standards and an economic blockade - under the influence of these factors, the influence of the Girondins began to fade, which the Jacobins took advantage of. The betrayal of General Dumouriez served as an excellent reason to accuse the government of aiding its enemies and remove him from power. Danton headed the Committee of Public Safety - executive branch concentrated in the hands of the Jacobins. The significance of the Great French Revolution and the ideals that it stood for have lost all meaning. Terror and violence swept through France.

Apogee of terror

France was going through one of the most difficult periods in its history. Her army was retreating, the southwest, under the influence of the Girondins, rebelled. In addition, supporters of the monarchy became more active. The death of Marat shocked Robespierre so much that he only thirsted for blood.

The functions of the government were transferred to the Committee of Public Safety - a wave of terror swept through France. After the adoption of the decree of June 10, 1794, the accused were deprived of the right to defense. The results of the Great French Revolution during the Jacobin dictatorship - approximately 35 thousand died and over 120 thousand fled into exile.

The policy of terror so consumed its creators that the republic, having become hated, perished.

Napoleon Bonaparte

France had been drained of blood by civil war, and the revolution had lost its momentum and grip. Everything changed: now the Jacobins themselves were persecuted and persecuted. Their club was closed, and the Committee of Public Safety gradually lost power. The Convention, defending the interests of those who enriched themselves during the years of the revolution, on the contrary, strengthened its positions, but its position remained precarious. Taking advantage of this, the Jacobins staged a rebellion in May 1795, which, although it was harshly suppressed, it accelerated the dissolution of the Convention.

Moderate Republicans and Girondins created the Directory. France is mired in corruption, debauchery and a complete breakdown of morals. One of the most prominent figures in the Directory was Count Barras. He noticed Napoleon Bonaparte and promoted him through the ranks, sending him on military campaigns.

The people finally lost faith in the Directory and its political leaders, which Napoleon took advantage of. On November 9, 1799, the consular regime was proclaimed. All executive power was concentrated in the hands of the first consul - Napoleon Bonaparte. The functions of the other two consuls were only advisory in nature. The revolution is over.

Fruits of the revolution

The results of the Great French Revolution were expressed in a change in economic formations and changes in socio-economic relations. The church and aristocracy finally lost their former power and influence. France embarked on the economic path of capitalism and progress. Its people, seasoned in battle and adversity, possessed the most powerful combat-ready army of that time. The significance of the Great French Revolution is great: in the minds of many European peoples ideals of equality and dreams of freedom were formed. But at the same time, there was also a fear of new revolutionary upheavals.

The two largest revolutions in terms of their impact on the world have received surprisingly little comparative study. In the Soviet era, this was made difficult by the ideological factor, which drew a sharp line between “bourgeois” and “socialist” revolutions, and in the conditions of modern Russia - the lack of development of comparative historical research and the (but still incomplete) rethinking of the very phenomenon of revolutions that has occurred over the past two decades. The October Revolution underwent a particularly sharp, polar revision, but also in French historiography by the 1970s. Many key provisions of the classical social theory of the revolution of 1789 were refuted, interpreting it in the usual terms of “feudalism”, “capitalism”, etc. The revolution began to be viewed from the point of view of human rights and freedoms, changes in mentality, etc., and “embedded” in a long historical context (1).

As a result, already on the approaches to comparing the October and French revolutions, a lot of questions arise. It is not even clear whether the terms “socialist”, “bourgeois”, “great” are applicable to them; what exactly to compare the French Revolution with - directly with the October Revolution; with the February and October revolutions or with the February, October revolutions and the Civil War, increasingly being united by researchers into a single “Russian Revolution”? (Individual French historians: J. Lefebvre, E. Labrousse, M. Bouloiseau, on the contrary, identified several revolutions in the Great French Revolution, either substantively or chronologically.)

Without trying to cover the whole gamut of problems within the framework of a small article, we will try to outline only some fundamental points that united and distinguished the French and October revolutions. This would help us break through the still existing scholastic schemes and get closer to understanding the phenomenon of revolutions.

Despite the 128 years that separated the events of 1789 and 1917. and despite the obvious contrast in the natural, climatic, sociocultural and other conditions of France and Russia, many of the factors that gave rise to and acted during the revolutions under consideration were to one degree or another similar. This was explained not only by the powerful influence of the French experience (to one degree or another it was used by almost all political forces). The Bolsheviks considered themselves followers of the Jacobins. A huge part of Russian revolutionary vocabulary (“Provisional Government”, “Constituent Assembly”, “commissar”, “decree”, “tribunal”, “whites” and “reds”, etc.) originated from the French Revolution. Accusations of Jacobinism and, on the contrary, appeals to the experience of the Jacobins, fears or hopes associated with the “Vendee”, “Thermidor”, “Bonapartism”, etc., have become one of the most common subjects of political discussions in our country (2).

Both French and October Revolution marked an important (although far from being as self-sufficient as previously thought) step towards the transition from a traditional agrarian society to an industrial one and were associated with contradictions that arose between them, and to some extent, within the nascent industrial society(to use the usual, ideologized term - inside capitalism).

Major European revolutions, as revealed by Lately economists, occurred at a similar stage economic development, when the gross domestic product per capita ranged from 1200 to 1500 dollars. In France it was estimated at approximately 1218, and in Russia - 1488 dollars (3)

Moreover, in the pre-revolutionary period, both countries demonstrated extremely high economic growth. Contrary to stereotypes, France in the 18th century. developed noticeably faster than England, its economy was the largest in the world, with GNP twice as large as England's (4). Since post-reform times, Russia has been ahead of all European powers in terms of economic growth.

On the eve of the revolutions, both countries experienced a significant deterioration in their economic situation due to a bad harvest in 1788 and the First World War. However, it is by no means difficult situation the masses became the main factor in revolutions. In France XVIII V. the level of taxation was half that in Great Britain, and in Russia 1914-1916, despite economic difficulties, interruptions in food supply cities, overall production growth continued, and the situation of the masses was significantly better than in Germany, which was at war with it. A. de Tocqueville, who noted long ago that “revolutions are not always led only by the deterioration of the living conditions of the people” (5), turned out to be right.

In the pre-revolutionary period, France and Russia experienced a demographic explosion, caused primarily by a decrease in mortality. Population of France for 1715-1789 increased by more than 1.6 times - from 16 to 26 million people, and the population of Russia in 1858-1914. - 2.3 times, from 74.5 million. up to 168.9 million people (without Poland and Finland it was 153.5 million) (6). This contributed to both fast economic growth, and strengthening social tension, especially in the village, where more than 4/5 of the population of both countries lived. The share of city dwellers was also approximately the same: in France in 1800 it was 13%, in Russia by 1914 it was 15%. In terms of population literacy (40%), our country by 1913 was approximately equal to France in 1785 (37%) (7).

The social structure of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, like that of France in the 18th century. (albeit to a greater extent) had a transitional character - from class to class - in nature. The class division has already undergone noticeable erosion, and the process of class formation has not yet been completed. Fragmentation and instability social structure became one of the factors of revolutionary upheavals. To others common factor, which increased the mobility of the population was the replacement of traditional large (composite) families with small ones (8).

In France in the 18th century. and in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. The religiosity of the population and the influence of the church, which was in close connection with state power, fell (9). The abolition by the Provisional Government in Russia of compulsory communion for soldiers led to a decrease in the proportion of those receiving communion from 100 to 10% and below. Such a large-scale decline in religiosity reflected a crisis of traditional consciousness and facilitated the spread of political ideologies.

One of the features of the historical development of Russia since the 18th century. was considered a sociocultural split between the “lower classes” and the “highest” of society, which played a crucial role in 1917. However, some modern French historians (R. Mushamble, R. Chartier, D. Roche) noted the presence in their country before the revolution of “two cultural poles ", "two cultures" and even "two Frances".

The approximate similarity of a number of key features of the development of pre-revolutionary France and Russia is not accidental. The predominance of the peasantry served as a necessary factor for the development of a broad “anti-feudal” movement, since many structures of traditional society were rooted in the countryside. At the same time, the presence of an already noticeable proportion of the urban population provided leadership for this movement, its relatively new, compared to the peasant wars of the Middle Ages, direction and some organization. Demographic explosion, erosion of class barriers; the formation of classes, new social groups striving for property and power; the emergence of a significant, although not yet predominant, proportion of the literate population; the transition from patriarchal families to small ones and the decline in the role of religion - all this was a necessary condition for breaking traditional stereotypes mass consciousness and the involvement of a significant part of the people in the political process.

Pre-revolutionary France and Russia were brought together by a power unprecedented by European standards monarchical power(which largely determined the strength of the revolutionary explosion), and in the development of events, the course of revolutions, one can note decisive role capitals (“The political predominance of the capital over the rest of the state is not due to its position, not its size, not its wealth, but solely to the nature of government,” noted Tocqueville.).

The most important revolutionary factor generated by the desacralization of mass consciousness, the growth of education and social mobility the population of France and Russia, as well as the actions of the authorities, was to discredit the monarchs, and hence, to a large extent, the institution of the monarchy. When Louis XV fell ill in 1744, 6 thousand masses were ordered for his health at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, and when he died, in 1774, only 3 masses were ordered (10). Louis XVI and Nicholas II turned out to be weak rulers for such turbulent eras. Both of them tried to carry out overdue reforms (Turgot, Calonne and Necker in France, Witte and Stolypin in Russia), but, faced with resistance from the ruling elite, for the most part they were unable to implement or complete them. Yielding to pressure, they made concessions, but sometimes tried to win them back, and in general they pursued a contradictory, wavering course that only teased the revolutionary masses. " Separated friend from each other, five quarters of a century, the king and the king appear at certain moments as two actors playing the same role,” noted L.D. Trotsky in “History of the Russian Revolution”.

Both monarchs had unpopular foreign wives. “Queens are taller than their kings not only in physical stature, but also morally,” wrote Trotsky. - Marie Antoinette is less pious than Alexandra Feodorovna, and, unlike the latter, she is ardently devoted to pleasure. But both equally despised the people, could not bear the thought of concessions, and equally did not trust the courage of their husbands.” Austrian and Germanic origin queens and queens at war with their native countries served as an irritant to the masses, provoking rumors of treason and further discrediting the monarchies.

Both revolutions began relatively anemic, initially went through a period of dual power, but underwent rapid radicalization. (“The most amazing thing about the French Revolution,” marveled J. de Maistre, “is its captivating power, which removes all obstacles.”) In terms of the breadth of involvement of the masses, and hence in its radicalism and bloodshed, in terms of secularism, and in one way or another to the extent and anti-religiousness of ideologies, a clear social orientation and messianism, in terms of influence on the world, the October and French revolutions are closer than any others.

Sometimes almost literal analogies can be traced, right up to the people’s petitions to their monarchs. In France, this happened 14 years before the revolution - on May 2, 1775, and in Russia - 12 years before, on January 9, 1905. Although the king deigned to go out onto the balcony of the Versailles Castle, and the tsar was not in the Winter Palace, both attempts to file a complaint turned out to be unsuccessful and caused repressions: in France - the hanging of two people from the crowd, in Russia - the shooting of demonstrations. No less remarkable is the coincidence of the key myths and symbols of these revolutions, which were the “assaults” of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 and the Winter Palace on October 25-26, 1917. In fact, they were not at all heroic battles, but by noisy, but anemic (especially for the attackers) seizures of objects that did not seriously resist.

The fall of the monarchies in France and Russia did not prevent the further radicalization of the revolutions; on the contrary, it gave them a powerful impetus, which ultimately brought the Jacobins and Bolsheviks to power and served to unleash terror on an unprecedented scale. The number of his victims in France, according to latest estimates, exceeded 40 thousand people, and together with the victims of the civil war that unfolded in the Vendée and other areas, it amounted to from 200 to 300 thousand people - approximately 1% of the country's population (11). There is no complete data on the total number of victims of revolutionary terror in Russia, and the available data are fragmentary and contradictory. But it is known that population losses during the October Revolution and the Civil War of 1917-1922. amounted to from 12.7 to 15 million people (of which 2 million emigrated); Thus, every tenth to twelfth person died or was forced to leave the country. Irrevocable losses Russia in the First World War (1914-1917) - 3-4 million people - were about 4 times smaller. Even the losses of all 38 countries participating in the war, representing 3/4 of the world's population, amounted to 10 million people, i.e. significantly inferior to the losses of Russia alone in the Civil War!

The terrible price of revolutions, their dire consequences do not end there. France gained broad democratic rights and political stability only after two more revolutions and upheavals associated with the lost war with Prussia and the short-lived but bloody history Paris Commune, more than 70 years after the end of the Great Revolution.

Only during the Third Republic, after the completion industrial revolution and the creation of an industrial society (industrial output exceeded agricultural output in France in the mid-1880s), revolutionary upheavals became a thing of the past.

Although in the future the French Revolution gave impetus to the industrial revolution (it began in last years XVIII century), unprecedented revolutionary upheavals and a decade and a half of devastating Napoleonic wars (12) undermined the French economy and its position in the world. The French economy, which competed with the English economy and surpassed it in scale, easily lost primacy to it in the 19th century (13), and then “let ahead” the United States, Germany, and Tsarist Russia.

The consequences of the October Revolution, which included not only the Civil War, but also mass collectivization, as well as direct political repression, even according to the most conservative estimates, they gave about 20 million dead (and this does not count the 27 million who fell in the Great Patriotic War). Moreover, the 74-year socialist experiment for which these sacrifices were made failed and led to the collapse of the USSR. As a result, in beginning of XXI V. The country occupies a worse position in the world than at the beginning of the 20th century. (14)

Then the Russian economy was 4th in the world, in 2005 (in terms of GDP) it was only 15th, and taking into account the purchasing power parity of the currency - 10th. In terms of the level of democratic freedoms, efficiency of the state apparatus and corruption, our country is among developing countries, and not at the top of their list. Already from the mid-1960s. The decline in mortality and the increase in life expectancy stopped, and since the 1990s. Russia's population is inexorably declining.

The unprecedentedly catastrophic consequences of the October Revolution and the socialist experiment it began are attracting increased attention to its distinctive features.

The French Revolution, like other European revolutions, was directed against the structures and relations of traditional society (“remnants of feudalism”). In the October Revolution, even if individual general democratic tasks were initially solved (legislative abolition of estates, separation of the state from the church, division of landowners’ lands), it was only “in passing.” As a result, the revolution led to the virtual destruction of democratic freedoms and the reproduction - in a modernized, industrial form - of many characteristics of traditional society. Equalizing, socialist tendencies, which were only hinted at in the French Revolution by the Jacobins, the “mad”, and somewhat more so by C. Faucher, members of the Social Circle and Babeuf’s Conspiracy of Equals, acquired dominant significance in the October Revolution.

The French Revolution, based on the ideas of the Enlightenment, the principle of " general will", emphasized national objectives. Its manifesto was the “Declaration of the Rights and Freedoms of the Citizen,” which declared private property sacred and inviolable, and emphasized: “Men are born and live free and equal before the law,” “the source of sovereignty is based essentially in the nation. No corporation, no individual can wield power that does not clearly emanate from this source.” The revolution caused a patriotic upsurge; the word “patriot” became synonymous with the word “revolutionary.” As a result of the revolution, the French nation was formed.

The October Revolution, which grew out of the First World War (which the Bolsheviks met with the slogan of “defeat in the war of their own government”, and ended with a humiliating, “obscene”, as Lenin admitted, separate peace), as well as from the internationalist Marxist ideology, on the contrary, despised patriotic, common goals and emphasized private, “class” objectives and the redistribution of property. The manifesto of the revolution was the Declaration of the Rights not of the citizen, but only of the “working and exploited people,” which proclaimed the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e., a clear minority) and was included, following the French example, in the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918. The Bolsheviks’ explanations that the working people are the overwhelming majority of the population turned out to be just a screen for the further “division” of the people according to the degree of “class purity” and “consciousness”, and ultimately for the establishment of a totalitarian regime. Russian national consciousness has not yet taken shape.

In the eventual, “technological” plan, such a result became possible not because October 1917, unlike 1789, was purposefully prepared by the Bolshevik Party. Having passed, like the French Revolution, various stages, Oktyabrskaya did not end in “Thermidor”. The Bolsheviks only temporarily adopted partial “self-thermidorization” during the NEP years, which allowed them to survive and then launch a new offensive. (The events of 1991, which led to the collapse of socialism and the USSR, can be considered partly a belated “Thermidor.”

The essential differences of October were largely determined by the fact that this revolution occurred after the industrial revolution. Therefore, by 1917 Russia had a more developed industry and a working class (albeit not yet fully formed)15, a much higher concentration of production and even its partial monopolization. The latter - combined with increased government regulation during the First World War - significantly facilitated the establishment state control over the economy and the transition to a new socio-economic model. By the beginning of the 20th century. The ideological brainchild of the industrial revolution, Marxism, which theoretically substantiated such a transition, also managed to gain popularity.

In addition, unlike France at the end of the 18th century, Russia entered 1917 already having experience of revolution (1905-1907), recognized revolutionary leaders and “tested” radical parties. Varied socialist parties, whose ideology turned out to be close to the traditional mass consciousness, occupied a disproportionately large place in the party system. Already after February 1917, they dominated the political arena, and in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, for the first time in the world, they received more than 4/5 of the votes (16).

The solution to October 1917 lies, first of all, in a unique “proportion”, a combination of contradictions of early modernization and the maturing industrial society, complicated by the crisis of the Russian Empire and especially the First World War, which had a total impact on all spheres of society and mass consciousness.

In addition, the transition from a traditional society to an industrial one began in our country from a qualitatively different “initial base” than in France - a previous historical path, on which, as we know, there was a 240-year Mongol-Tatar conquest, serfdom, autocracy, “ service state,” Orthodoxy, but there were neither free cities (at least since the 15th century) and burghers, nor strong traditions of written law and parliamentarism (except for the specific and short-lived experience of Zemsky Sobors), nor the Renaissance. That is why the objectively difficult, painful process of industrial modernization was particularly difficult for us. This modernization (and, accordingly, the breakdown of traditional structures and stereotypes of mass consciousness) took place at a speed unprecedented in Europe, skipping and rearranging individual phases.

As a result, in Russia by 1917 (i.e., two decades after the industrial revolution), the agrarian revolution, unlike the leading powers, was not completed; more than 4/5 of the population lived in the countryside, where communal rather than private property dominated to the land, and the strength of the Russian bourgeoisie was significantly inferior to the level of economic development of the country due to increased role state and foreign capital (accounting for about 1/3 of the total share capital).

The combination of a highly concentrated industry, young, closely connected with the countryside, but already having acquired the revolutionary traditions of the working class and relatively weak bourgeoisie with the numerically overwhelming communal peasantry, with its egalitarian, collectivist mentality, hatred of “bars” and huge marginal layers (due to the speed of modernization processes and World War) and created that explosive mixture, the explosion of which - detonated by war, weakness, discreditation of power, and then the beginning of the collapse of the empire - “launched” the Russian revolution much further than the European ones.

At first it seemed that in terms of its significance and influence on world processes, the October Revolution overshadowed the French Revolution. But by the end of the 20th century, it became obvious that the French Revolution, despite its bloody transformation and prohibitively high cost, objectively gave impetus to the change from traditional societies to industrial ones. The October Revolution, on the contrary, erased its positive consequences in Russia, and then in a number of other countries that fell into the orbit of the USSR, opening rather not a new era, but, in the words of N.A. Berdyaev, “new Middle Ages”. Socialism, which objectively served as an alternative to capitalism through the formation of an industrial society, showed the dead end of this path. (There is no doubt that this was precisely socialism - the main signs of socialism: the destruction of private property, the power of the “proletarian party” and others were evident.)

Thus, if the term “socialist” is applicable to the October Revolution, then the concept “bourgeois” in relation to the French Revolution can only be used in a narrow, specific sense. Whether these revolutions can be called great depends on the scale of values: whether they are led by human life or abstract “trends” or “patterns”. Nevertheless, in terms of the scale of their influence on society and the world, these revolutions deserve the name “great”.