The Great French Revolution

The Great French Revolution 1789-1793

by Pyotr Kropotkin

With the international celebrations of the French Revolution as background, the publication of Peter Kropotkin's classic with an introduction by George Woodcock represents the fulfilment of an important documentary need.  The turbulent upheaval that swept in the first mighty revolution in the West, and which had such far ranging consequences, has subsequently been described by a thousand differing pens. From the King's summoning of the Estates General in 1789 to the establishment of the Directory in 1793, the revolution has had many interpretations. But Kropotkin is among the very few who analyses this drama not only as a complex interplay of its leading personalities or a chain of political decisions made from above; rather, he penetrates this surface confusion to describe a great reordering of the economic bases of the ancien régime by the mass of urban workers and the peasantry. He saw the redistribution of land impeded at every step by an aggrandising middle class and by the forces of the counter-revolution inside and outside France.  Kropotkin, as a true historian, was not concerned with merely the period he discussed. He saw it as a climax in a long past and future development. The result is a very skillful and absorbing book, with great momentum, an active and readable style, and a capable use of a mass of details regarding the most obscure but no less important aspects of the French Revolution.  First published in 1909 and long out of print, The Great French Revolution is the finest historical writing from the fluent pen of Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921). The introduction by George Woodcock, the celebrated Canadian author, throws a modern light on the significance and scope of Kropotkin's contribution.

Genres: History, French Revolution, Nonfiction, Politics, France, European History, Sociology

630 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1893

About the author

Pyotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin, prince, Russian anarchist, and political philosopher, greatly influenced movements throughout the world and maintained that cooperation, not competition, the means, bettered the human condition.

Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin (Пётр Алексеевич Кропоткин, other spelling: Pëtr Kropotkin, Pierre Kropotkine), who described him as "a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ, which seems coming." He wrote many books, pamphlets and articles, the most prominent being The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops , and his principal scientific offering, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution . He also contributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition .

Reviews

[Benjamin Curry · Rating 4 out of 5]

A marvellous book. My first proper read on the French Revolution, and an excellent introduction to the topic. He really brings out the role of the plebeian masses, the peasants and the bourgeois in the revolutionary movement in its key phases: the storming of the Bastille, the march to Versailles, the storming of the Tuileries in 1792, the September massacres, the insurrection of May 1793 and the work of the Convention and the war. A fantastic class analysis. The book is tinged by his own views as an anarchist, particularly when he gets to 1793, the highest point of the movement. As a petty bourgeois 'communist' anarchist, he regards the demands of the primitive communist groups that arose in France at that time (a communism of the semi-proletarian semi-pb masses, primarily a communism of consumption, and the highest point to which pb democracy can attain) as the highest development of communist ideas down to the present.

[Gautam Bhatia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a magnificent read. Kropotkin engages in a "from below" take on the four years of the French Revolution (1789 - 1793), and explains how at all times there were two currents present in the revolution - the "middle class" current, which wanted to secure State power for the ascendant middle class, and the "peasantry", which wanted a much more radical overhaul of the existing structure, to achieve "equality in fact." He shows how each time the Convention was pushed to take radical steps (such as the complete abolition of feudal obligations), it was only because it was backed into a corner by street-level insurrections, that left it no choice; and that the Thermidorean reaction set in after those energies had finally exhausted themselves. Kropotkin's style is a delight, and he brings to light a whole host of people and events that more mainstream histories often gloss over (such as the early French communists etc). Once you start reading it, it's like a cliffhanger - you won't be able to stop.

[dell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite some misconceptions about genuine socialism and communism, and the obvious anarchist analysis of the state, this is evidently Kropotkin’s magnum opus. Nowhere else has the French Revolution been studied in such detail to prove that it was truly the masses of Paris and the poor peasants in the provinces who carried the revolution to victory. The author’s cutting analysis of the shameless vacillations of the petty bourgeoisie (the Jacobins in particular) was both incredibly refreshing and acts as a guidebook on the behaviours of the petty bourgeois/middle classes for future struggles.

[Tony Gualtieri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written by one of the founders of anarchism, this very readable history examines the revolution from the point of view of the average person. As such, the various machinations of the political bodies take second place to economic changes. Kropotkin sees the major conflict of the period as being between the emerging bourgeoisie, who undermine the revolution by upholding property rights, and "the people," who drive the revolution to destroy feudalism and return collectively owned land taken from them during the reigns of Louis XIV & Louis XV.

Kropotkin sensed that revolution was coming to Russia (and, he thought, Germany and Austria) and he looks to the French Revolution to understand the threats and interests that could derail the more radical goals. Not surprisingly, it comes down to middle class greed wearing down revolutionary fervor. But, he ends on an optimistic note claiming that the course of revolution is not linear and that many of the more obscene injustices of 1789 were destroyed forever, in ways that never could have been achieved by mere reform.

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

a fantastic history, written in Kropotkin's frank and very clear manner, elucidating that the major issues at work were people's access to land and the basic necessities of life, and how the shifts in fortune of various political figures was a reaction to the mobilization of the masses, especially through the General Assemblies in the 'sections' of Paris, and the Communes throughout rural France.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kropotkin the great anarchist had a very diverse learning. Biology, geography, literature, politics and history were areas he addressed in his works. In The Great French Revolution he sets out to give an account of the revolution from below. Were other historians often focuses on the perceived leaders and documents Kropotkin let the anonymous masses take the centre stage.

As always in Kropotkin's works the language is easy to grasp and made for the common people. Kropotkin wanted his works to be read by the working man and peasant. If the academic world took interest he was glad, but it doesn't seem to have been his main intention.
If the language is good it has to be said that the chapters don't fit to each other very well. The big picture can feel like a bit of a mess. Many of Kropotkin's other works is put together in a more stringent way.

I think Kropotkin chose to write this work because he felt the ordinary people's struggles had been overlooked and he also believed there was (anarcho-)communist tendency among the masses. For Kropotkin, as he tried to show in mutual aid, the common people always have communistic tendencies they turn into some kind of practice. For Kropotkin, as opposed to Karl Marx, the communist society seem to have always been a possibility. By showing the communist tendencies in the french revolution he tries to make this hypothesis stronger.

His argumentation usually feel persuasive (although there is a lack of sources compared to today's serious scholarly research). But there are occasions were it seem like he just argues from a biased point of view. When for example the peasants demands communal sharing of the lands and the workers of Paris opposes the rich this is a spontaneous expression of their inner desires. When on the other hand the farmers rises against the republic they are simply manipulated by the priests.

I haven't read much about the french revolution, so I can't say whether Kropotkin's account gives any new insight that can't be found somewhere else. I would say this probably shouldn't be the first book to read about it, but it might be a good second book to read. For people who will are interested because it is Kropotkin I'll recommend you read "Conquest of bread", "Mutual aid" and "Memoirs of a Revolutionist" first. Then this one may be worth a read.

[Veenay Komaragiri · Rating 4 out of 5]

The focus here is on two primary currents of the French Revolution—the popular current of action undertaken by the peasants, and the intellectual current steered by the middle class. This was useful to me because it clearly outlines how a bourgeois revolution works. “Statesmen” manipulate revolutionary fervor to overthrow existing structures only to secure wealth and power in the hands of a new ruling class. It took me a while to get through because Kropotkin alternates between rousing passages detailing how the sans-culottes take matters into their own hands and dry analysis of how exactly reactionaries were able to beat back Republican progress. You’ll have moments that make your “heart vibrate,” the Tennis Court Oath, the storming of the Bastille and Tuileries, and the original abolition of feudal dues the night of August 4th 1789 (a subject of principal importance throughout the revolution). The tougher parts to get through are those dealing with treachery and legislative sleight of hand: the various plots of royalists to conspire with foreign forces, the split of “active” vs “passive” citizens, the protection of property rights at all costs and so on. Though it’s all important to read through it can get a bit tiring. The French peasant helped secure the abolition of serfdom and absolutism despite the weakening of their organic political bodies (Commune of Paris/Political Clubs), and widespread wartime immiseration. I appreciate Kropotkin highlighting the interests of the common man rather than purely discuss the leading figures of each party. Still, I think the next book I’ll choose on this period will be a more traditional history.

[Allie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't agree with Kropotkin about the importance of ideas, and I think as much as his abstract philosophising minimises it, he himself demonstrates the importance of class to the revolutionary process as he describes events. I also disagree with what he says about how a revolution is always temporary - indeed, the communism we strive for represents a state of permanent revolution - and, at least as far as I can tell, what he says about how once the initial phase of reaction after a revolution is defeated is over, the "line" of history continually rises (I assume he means progress in the interests of the oppressed here), both doesn't make conceptual sense within the terms he defines and seems to be contradicted by the course of history after his death, specifically the development of neoliberalism over the past 40 years. But the book did provide a lot of insight and taught me a lot about the (specific) revolution that I didn't know, to the extent that it completely transformed my perspective

Edit: it also informed a lot of my subsequent political development with regards to anarchist federalism

[Viral · Rating 5 out of 5]

I finally read this book in this edition as part of the Kickstarter PM Press did for Kropotkin. At first, when I backed the Kickstarter, I was surprised they chose this book to be the third book. I would have imagined they would pick "Conquest of Bread". I wasn't sure what to expect from this book.

I am so glad they went with it. This book is such a powerful and seminal work in "history from below". The story of the French Revolution always gets swept up in the grandeur of certain moments and folks: the Tennis Court Constitution, the Storming of the Bastille, the Flight of the Royals, and the Reign of Terror, and folks like Lafeyette, Robespierre, Marat, and Danton. But Kropotkin shows excellently how so much of these famed moments and folks were actually responding to or even less important than true bottom up revolutionary fervor in the city and the countryside. The Great French Revolution 1789-1793 is a masterpiece of historiography, and I'm so glad PM Press reprinted this to bring it to a new generation.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel genuinely enlightened after reading this book, as it clarified in a detailed and engaging way many of my questions about the French Revolution, while avoiding the superficiality typical of academic bourgeois histories. The role of the masses — which Lenin so rightly emphasized — is vividly brought to life in this masterpiece. It is fascinating to see how the pressure of the masses constantly influenced the direction of the Revolution, and especially how it acted upon the petty-bourgeois clubs.

“Those who have seen in the Revolution only a change in the Government, those who are ignorant of its economic as well as its educational work, those alone could put such a question. The France we see during the last days of the eighteenth century, at the moment of the coup d’état on the 18th Brumaire, is not the France that existed before 1789. Would it have been possible for the old France, wretchedly poor and with a third of her population suffering yearly from dearth, to have maintained the Napoleonic Wars, coming so soon after the terrible wars of the Republic between 1792 and 1799, when all Europe was attacking her? The fact is that a new France had been constituted since 1792–1793.”

“France fought so well for twenty-three years that, when she was compelled at last to admit the Bourbons, it was she who imposed conditions on them. The Bourbons might reign, but the lands were to be kept by those who had taken them from the feudal lords, so that even during the White Terror of the Bourbons they dared not touch those lands. The old régime could not be re-established.”

These two passages illustrate very well how the political counter-revolution in France was unable to restore feudal relations. Contrary to the common prejudice that the Revolution “accomplished nothing,” its economic gains were undeniable. It firmly established the capitalist mode of production, giving a tremendous impulse to the development of the productive forces.

However, this book is not without flaws. Kropotkin at times imposes his anarchist outlook too heavily on the events, seeing “anarchist-communism” wherever he can. There were, without doubt, communistic tendencies within the Revolution — as there have been since the dawn of class society. One need only recall that the first Christian sects practiced communism in consumption while rebelling against the decaying Roman Empire. But here lies the problem: in the last few chapters, Kropotkin claims that the socialism of the revolutionary era was more advanced than that of his own time (the late nineteenth century) because it focused on consumption — such as the abolition of speculation in food — whereas “modern scientific socialism” (clearly a polemic aimed at Marx and Engels) focuses too much on production.

Yet communism in consumption corresponds to the emergency measures of War Communism during the Russian Civil War — a necessary but transitory stage of scarcity, not genuine human liberation. Humanity cannot be freed from class society through egalitarian distribution of poverty, but only through communism in large-scale production, made possible by modern industry and planned abundance.

In short, this book is flawed but great — and it deserves all the praise it received in its time and still receives today.

[Sam Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently had a fit of desire to read up on the 19th century, which rapidly morphed into an interest in the French Revolution, a historical event that I had absorbed info about from general cultural osmosis and from history classes but which I hadn't actually dedicated much time to reading about. And I gotta say, the period of time around the French Revolution now grips me! Kropotkin's Great French Revolution should be the go-to classical work on the French Rev, it is masterfully written and enjoyable to read if perhaps brimming with numerous French names and a bit long. It is definitely a very 19th century-early 20th century work, but honestly that's another reason to read it, in a lot of ways people don't write stuff as good these days, generally speaking. I don't get why Edmund Burke's and Thomas Carlyle's conservative and liberal histories of the French Revolution continue to be the main traditional account in the English-speaking world forreal. Also, Kropotkin's work is the first major attempt at centering the lower classes in the French Revolution, and this work was one of Vladimir Lenin's favorite books; when I read it I definitely understood why! I do think its important to note, however, that this was not the edition I read, so I can't comment on every aspect of the translation or anything like that.

[Amine Bouzayeni · Rating 5 out of 5]

Magnifique, ce fut pour moi une plongée des plus passionnantes. Dans les pages de ce livres Kropotkine retrace l'histoire de la révolution française par un prisme se voulant prendre en compte,
en plus des grandes figures de celle-ci, les populations, qui tout le long, étaient dépourvus de pouvoirs institutionnels, leurs revendications et leurs melées avec ceux-ci dans l'oeuvre révolutionnaires qui fut autant si ce n'est plus la leur. Aborder des événements par cet angle populaire est juste
nécessaire pour cerner les rapports de force évoluant au fil des turbulences qui les animent permettant de comprendre la genèse des systèmes nouveaux. À relier pour moi pour mieux en capter des détails et à lire pour toute personne s'intéressant à l'histoire de cet événement.

[Andrew Bailey · Rating 5 out of 5]

A truly excellent work. Firey and unashamedly partisan, Kropotkin is nonetheless unafraid to cite unfriendly sources in order to get to the heart of the matter. The great arc of sweeping narrative is made manageable through its short, topical chapter structure. It is also fascinating as a glimpse into Kropotkin's own time, the debates of the eighteenth century are clearly in places being used to argue those of the nineteenth.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well, it looks like the 19th century had its share of spin doctors, and white washers.

[Rick Goff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an account of a revolution told by a revolutionary thinker.

[Zilla Novikov · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book. And an excellent counterpoint to all the honour and nobility of the Dumas books I've been reading about the revolution!

[Eric Phetteplace · Rating 3 out of 5]

A "people's history" that focuses on the popular forces and economics of the French Revolution. There's still a lot of talk of the personalities and Kropotkin assumes familiarity with the figures that a modern reader doesn't have—at times I became a bit bored or lost as waves of different political parties named after specific people came to power and then murdered each other. I was hoping for more coverage of the non-economic issues (the metric system! there was one chapter on it). I'm also confused about how the clergy were positioned in royalist French society and why the populace was so anti-religious. But on the whole, the book is a good work with tons of detail.

[Natalie]

I forever misplaced my copy of this book on the same day in which I received a parking ticket for being 3 minutes late back to my car.

It was not a good day.

I really want to track this one down again and give it another go.

[Francegcain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ha costado, pero ha merecido la pena.