the psychology of revolution-第49部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！

of　the　people；　created　by　the　Revolution　and　established　by　its

institutions；　have　exercised　a　profound　influence。　　The　military

work　of　the　conqueror　was　soon　dissolved；　but　the　revolutionary

principles　which　he　contributed　to　propagate　have　survived　him。



The　various　restorations　which　followed　the　Empire　caused　men　at

first　to　become　somewhat　forgetful　of　the　principles　of　the

Revolution。　　For　fifty　years　this　propagation　was　far　from　rapid。　

One　might　almost　have　supposed　that　the　people　had　forgotten

them。　　Only　a　small　number　of　theorists　maintained　their

influence。　　Heirs　to　the　‘‘simplicist''　spirit　of　the　Jacobins；

believing；　like　them；　that　societies　can　be　remade　from　top　to

bottom　by　the　laws；　and　persuaded　that　the　Empire　had　only

interrupted　the　task　of　revolution；　they　wished　to　resume　it。



While　waiting　until　they　could　recommence；　they　attempted　to

spread　the　principles　of　the　Revolution　by　means　of　their

writings。　　Faithful　imitators　of　the　men　of　the　Revolution；　they

never　stopped　to　ask　if　their　schemes　for　reform　were　in

conformity　with　human　nature。　　They　too　were　erecting　a

chimerical　society　for　an　ideal　man；　and　were　persuaded　that　the

application　of　their　dreams　would　regenerate　the　human　species。



Deprived　of　all　constructive　power；　the　theorists　of　all　the　ages

have　always　been　very　ready　to　destroy。　　Napoleon　at　St。　Helena

stated　that　‘‘if　there　existed　a　monarchy　of　granite　the

idealists　and　theorists　would　manage　to　reduce　it　to　powder。''



Among　the　galaxy　of　dreamers　such　as　Saint…Simon；　Fourier；　Pierre

Leroux；　Louis　Blanc；　Quinet；　&c。；　we　find　that　only　Auguste　Comte

understood　that　a　transformation　of　manners　and　ideas　must

precede　political　reorganisation。



Far　from　favouring　the　diffusion　of　democratic　ideas；　the

projects　of　reform　of　the　theorists　of　this　period　merely　impeded

their　progress。　　Communistic　Socialism；　which　several　of

them　professed　would　restore　the　Revolution；　finally　alarmed　the

bourgeoisie　and　even　the　working…classes。　　We　have　already　seen

that　the　fear　of　their　ideas　was　one　of　the　principal　causes　of

the　restoration　of　the　Empire。



If　none　of　the　chimerical　lucubrations　of　the　writers　of　the

first　half　of　the　nineteenth　century　deserve　to　be　discussed；　it

is　none　the　less　interesting　to　examine　them　in　order　to　observe

the　part　played　by　religious　and　moral　ideas　which　to…day　are

regarded　with　contempt。　　Persuaded　that　a　new　society　could　not；

any　more　than　the　societies　of　old；　be　built　up　without　religious

and　moral　beliefs；　the　reformers　were　always　endeavouring　to

found　such　beliefs。



But　on　what　could　they　be　based？　　Evidently　on　reason。　　By　means

of　reason　men　create　complicated　machines：　why　not　therefore　a

religion　and　a　morality；　things　which　are　apparently　so　simple？　

Not　one　of　them　suspected　the　fact　that　no　religious　or　moral

belief　ever　had　rational　logic　as　its　basis。　　Auguste　Comte　saw

no　more　clearly。　　We　know　that　he　founded　a　so…called　positivist

religion；　which　still　has　a　few　followers。　　Scientists　were　to

form　a　clergy　directed　by　a　new　Pope；　who　was　to　replace　the

Catholic　Pope。



All　these　conceptionspolitical；　religious；　or　moralhad；　I

repeat；　no　other　results　for　a　long　time　than　to　turn　the

multitude　away　from　democratic　principles。



If　these　principles　did　finally　become　widespread；　it　was　not　on

account　of　the　theorists；　but　because　new　conditions　of　life　had

arisen。　　Thanks　to　the　discoveries　of　science；　industry　developed

and　led　to　the　erection　of　immense　factories。　　Economic

necessities　increasingly　dominated　the　wills　of　Governments　and

the　people　and　finally　created　a　favourable　soil　for　the

extension　of　Socialism；　and　above　all　of　Syndicalism；　the　modern

forms　of　democratic　ideas。





2。　　The　Unequal　Influence　of　the　Three　Fundamental　Principles　of

the　Revolution。





The　heritage　of　the　Revolution　is　summed　up　in　its　entirety　in

the　one　phraseLiberty；　equality；　and　Fraternity。　　The

principle　of　equality；　as　we　have　seen；　has　exerted　a　powerful

influence；　but　the　two　others　did　not　share　its　lot。



Although　the　sense　of　these　terms　seems　clear　enough；　they　were

comprehended　in　very　different　fashions　according　to　men　and

times。　　We　know　that　the　various　interpretation　of　the　same　words

by　persons　of　different　mentality　has　been　one　of　the　most

frequent　causes　of　the　conflicts　of　history。



To　the　member　of　the　Convention　liberty　signified　merely　the

exercise　of　its　unlimited　despotism。　　To　a　young　modern

‘‘intellectual''　the　same　word　means　a　general　release　from

everything　irksome：　tradition；　law；　superiority；　&c。　　To　the

modern　Jacobin　liberty　consists　especially　in　the　right　to

persecute　his　adversaries。



Although　political　orators　still　occasionally　mention　liberty　in

their　speeches；　they　have　generally　ceased　to　evoke　fraternity。　

It　is　the　conflict　of　the　different　classes　and　not　their

alliance　that　they　teach　to…day。　　Never　did　a　more　profound

hatred　divide　the　various　strata　of　society　and　the　political

parties　which　lead　them。



But　while　liberty　has　become　very　doubtful　and　fraternity　has

completely　vanished；　the　principle　of　equality　has　grown

unchecked。　　It　has　been　supreme　in　all　the　political　upheavals　of

which　France　has　been　the　stage　during　the　last　century；　and　has

reached　such　a　development　that　our　political　and　social　life；

our　laws；　manners；　and　customs　are　at　least　in　theory　based　on

this　principle。　　It　constitutes　the　real　legacy　of　the

Revolution。　　The　craving　for　equality；　not　only　before　the　law；

but　in　position　and　fortune；　is　the　very　pivot　of　the　last

product　of　democracy：　　Socialism。　　This　craving　is　so　powerful

that　it　is　spreading　in　all　directions；　although　in　contradiction

with　all　biological　and　economic　laws。　　It　is　a　new　phase　of　the

interrupted　struggle　of　the　sentiments　against　reason；　in　which

reason　so　rarely　triumphs。





2。　　The　Democracy　of　the　‘‘Intellectuals''　and　Popular　Democracy。





All　ideas　that　have　hitherto　caused　an　upheaval　of　the　world　of

men　have　been　subject　to　two　laws：　they　evolve　slowly；　and　they

completely　change　their　sense　according　to　the　mentalities　in

which　they　find　reception。



A　doctrine　may　be　compared　to　a　living　being。　　It　subsists　only

by　process　of　transformation。　　The　books　are　necessarily　silent

upon　these　variations；　so　that　the　phase　of　things　which　they

establish　belongs　only　to　the　past。　　They　do　not　reflect　the

image　of　the　living；　but　of　the　dead。　　The　written　statement　of　a

doctrine　often　represents　the　most　negligible　side　of　that

doctrine。



I　have　shown　in　another　work　how　institutions；　arts；　and

languages　are　modified　in　passing　from　one　people　to　another；　and

how　the　laws　of　these　transformations　differ　from　the　truth　as

stated　in　books。　　I　allude　to　this　matter　now　merely　to　show　why；

in　examining　the　subject　of　democratic　ideas；　we　occupy　ourselves

so　little　with　the　text　of　doctrines；　and　seek　only　for　the

psychological　elements　of　which　they　constitute　the　vestment；　and

the　reactions　which　they　provoke　in　the　various　categories　of　men

who　have　accepted　them。



Modified　rapidly　by　men　of　different　mentalities；　the　original

theory　is　soon　no　more　than　a　label　which　denotes　something　quite

unlike　itself。



Applicable　to　religious　beliefs；　these　principles　are　equally　so

to　political　beliefs。　　When　a　man　speaks　of　democracy；　for

example；　must　we　inquire　what　this　word　means　to　various　peoples；

and　also　whether　in　the　same　people　there　is　not　a　great

difference　between　the　democracy　of　the　‘‘intellectuals''　and

popular　democracy。



In　confining　ourselves　now　to　the　consideration　of　this　latter

point　we　shall　readily　perceive　that　the　democratic　ideas　to　be

found　in　books　and　journals　are　purely　the　theories　of　literary

people；　of　which　the　people　know　nothing；　and　by　the　application

of　which　they　would　have　nothing　to　gain。　　Although　the　working…

man　possesses　the　theoretical　right　of　passing　the　barriers　which

separate　him　from　the　upper　classes　by　a　whole　series　of

competitions　and　examinations；　his　chance　of　reaching　them　is　in

reality　extremely　slight。



The　democracy　of　the　lettered　classes　has　no　other　object　than　to

set　up　a　selection　which　shall　recruit　the　directing　classes

exclusively　from　themselves。　　I　should　have　nothing　to　say

against　this　if　the　selection　were　real。　　It　would　then

constitute　the　application　of　the　maxim　of　Napoleon：　　‘‘The　true

method　of　government　is　to　employ　the　aristocracy；　but　under　the

forms　of　democracy。''



Unhappily　the　democracy　of　the　‘‘intellectuals''　would　simply

lead　to　the　substitution　of　the　Divine　right　of　kings　by　the

Divine　right　of　a　petty　oligarchy；　which　is　too　often　narrow　and

tyrannical。　　Liberty　cannot　be　created　by　replacing　a　tyranny。



Popular　democracy　by　no　means　aims　at　manufacturing　rul