Summary
"The Revolution Betrayed" argues that the French Revolution's theoretical basis, "the community is sovereign," as articulated in Jean Jacques Rousseau's *Contrat Social*, is the fundamental principle that explains its trajectory. The book aims to present this political theory, the "Revolutionary Creed," clearly and explain the interlocking sequence and reasons behind the Revolution's events, from massacres and panics to victories and societal transformations. It emphasizes the necessity of understanding the military history of the Revolution, viewing campaigns as the core of historical periods and seeing how military affairs integrate with civilian development.
The book distinguishes between vital democratic principles, like the equality of man, and less essential "machinery of politics," such as representative systems, which have been mistakenly conflated with the Revolution's core ideas. It asserts that while the doctrine of equality is a transcendent dogma, the sovereignty of the community is a principle of political morals. Readers gain an understanding of the Revolution's driving theory and the interconnectedness of its political, social, and military dimensions.
Key concepts
- Revolutionary Creed — The political theory of the French Revolution, primarily articulated in Rousseau's *Contrat Social*, positing that the community is sovereign.
- Contrat Social — Jean Jacques Rousseau's book that became the formula for the Revolutionary Creed, expressing the prime truth of political morals regarding community sovereignty.
- Transcendent Doctrine — A concept, like the equality of man, that corresponds to no graspable physical reality and is understood in a negative manner or through metaphors.
- Machinery of Politics — Minor points concerning the operation of politics, such as representative systems, which are distinct from the vital principles of the revolutionary theory.
- Community is Sovereign — The underlying theory of political morals behind the Revolution, stating that the collective community holds ultimate authority.
From the book
Title: The Revolution Betrayed by Leon TrotskyFor works with similar titles, see French Revolution . ← The French Revolution ( 1911 ) by Hilaire Belloc /Chapter 1 → Home University Library of Modern Knowledge 589255 The French Revolution 1911 Hilaire Belloc THE FRENCH REVOLUTION BY HILAIRE BELLOC, M.A. AUTHOR OF "DANTON," " ROBESPIERRE," "MARIE ANTOINETTE," " THE OLD ROAD," "THE PATH TO ROME," " PARIS," " THE HILLS AND THE SEA," " THE HISTORIC THAMES, " ETC., ETC LONDON WILLIAMS AND NORGATE Richard Clay & Sons, Limited , bread street hill, e.c., and bungay, suffolk . PREFACE The object of these few pages is not to recount once more the history of the Revolution: that can be followed in any one of a hundred text-books. Their object is rather to lay, if that be possible, an…
Popular questions readers ask
- Belloc states his object is not to recount history but to "lay an explanation of it before the English reader." If you were to explain this distinction to a student unfamiliar with the French Revolution, how would you describe the difference between merely recounting events and providing Belloc's deeper "explanation," and why is that distinction crucial for true understanding?
- Belloc identifies a specific "political theory" that served as a "religious creed," driving everything from the Civil Code to massacres. How would you articulate what it means for a political theory to function as a "religious creed," explaining how this concept provides a unified "motive force" for such disparate outcomes in the Revolution?
- Belloc insists on understanding not just *that* events like the royal family's flight led to war, but *how and why*. Choose a major turning point in the French Revolution (even if not explicitly detailed here) and, applying Belloc's logic, explain the intricate "interlocking" reasons and mechanisms that drove its progression, rather than simply listing its chronological occurrences.
- Belloc argues that the "will and manner" of key figures like the King or Queen profoundly shaped the Revolution's fate. How would you explain to someone skeptical of individual agency precisely *how* the specific traits or decisions of individual leaders, rather than only larger societal forces, could fundamentally alter the course and outcome of a massive historical movement like the French Revolution?
- Belloc criticizes historians for reducing the "military aspect" to "particular victories and general actions," emphasizing instead the importance of "campaigns." If you were explaining this distinction, what specific insights would a focus on "campaigns" over isolated battles offer for understanding the *entire* Revolutionary movement, and why might traditional historians overlook this broader perspective?