1770-1970: An Overview – Folha de S. Paulo, February 22, 1970

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

To understand the latest political moves of international communism, it is very helpful and even essential to look back at the history of the past 200 years. The scope of this study is definitely worth the effort.

Indeed, communism today appears both powerful and rotten. Powerful because: a) it spans such a vast area and numerous peoples that it constitutes one of history’s greatest “ideological empires;” b) it has never faced such naive, timid, and submissive adversaries. At the same time, it seems rotten because: a) never before have its leaders seemed so indifferent to the ideological essence of communism; b) never before has opposition within the ranks of the various Communist Parties been so bold, knowledgeable, and popular; c) and never before has the autonomist movement in the satellite countries seemed so unstoppable.

If the main goal of our day is to defeat communism, selecting the best method to accomplish this is of utmost importance. Such a choice must consider what is happening within communist ranks. This leads to a crucial question: Is this double-sided phenomenon of dominance and decay real, or is it a new trick by the enemy?

If a historical review from 1770 to today sheds light on this question, its usefulness is undeniable.

* * *

In its essential aspects, the history of this period involved the preparation, outbreak, expansion, and peak of a massive upheaval of ideas, lifestyles, artistic systems, and political, social, and economic institutions that has become known as the French Revolution. Indeed, in 1770 (we choose this year somewhat arbitrarily to avoid going back more than 200 years), the Revolution was in the final stage of its deep and slow development. It emerged in 1789, and the collapse of the “Ancien Régime” began. Within a few years, the Church was gradually reduced to a tolerated institution and ultimately outlawed. The Bourbon throne was overthrown, and the aristocracy was abolished. The revolutionary fury then turned against the wealthy, as the Revolution took on unmistakably communist overtones in its most intense phase, the Terror. The latter, which lasted five years, encapsulates what could be called the explosive, radical, and tragic phase of the Revolution.

Then came the Revolution’s vast, slow, stealthy, and adaptable phase. It has lasted from 1794 to the present day (assuming that, from a certain perspective, the Revolution is still ongoing and increasingly shaping the world with its anarchic and egalitarian mindset). This phase is divided into two periods: a) strategic retreat; b) counterattack.

After unleashing all its destructive fury and pushing its opponents to the limit, the Revolution gradually pulled back.

During its initial strategic retreat phase (from the early Directory until the fall of Charles X in 1830), the communist offensive stalled, and the bourgeoisie’s dominance was reinforced.

With Napoleon, the backtracking became even clearer. The republic was replaced by a false monarchy. Bourgeois society was turned into a nouveau riche aristocracy of newly wealthy individuals, victorious generals, and high-ranking officials. Although unable to regain its former status, the Church was freed from its constraints and entered into a concordat with the state. Napoleon even aimed to appease his opponents, who longed for the old regime, by marrying an archduchess of Austria. This made him, by marriage, the grandnephew of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. He also brought as many Bourbon courtiers into his court as he could persuade. Additionally, he tried to buy the rights to the throne from the Count of Provence, brother and successor of Louis XVI.

However, this apparent return to the past was more superficial than genuine. During the Directory, the Consulate, and the Empire, the main development was that the new, secular, egalitarian, and plebeian society became more stable and consistent. The moves back to the “Ancien Régime” served a strategic purpose: they comforted and distracted the Revolution’s opponents but offered nothing firm or lasting in return. What the Revolution seemed to give up was offset by deeper gains.

How did this neutralization of the Revolution’s opponents operate?

Aware that terrorism had sown seeds of unrest and terrified by the idea of a revolutionary revival, the clergy, nobles, and those longing for the past willingly accepted the small amount that the new order of things restored to them. And, while abhorring it, they submitted to it to avoid losing everything, fearing something worse might happen. They abandoned their cherished hopes to retain the little they had regained.

Things continued on the same path until the allies overthrew Napoleon, and the former Count of Provence, Louis XVIII, took the throne. The clergy and emigres received a few more honors, and that was all. Since the king accepted it, the order of things Napoleon had established mostly remained the same, now supported by most of his previous enemies.

Secret societies fostered active revolutionary propaganda under the Bourbons (1815-1830). For the most part, opponents of the Revolution clung to their “give in some so as not to lose all” attitude; leisurely savoring their incomplete victory, they focused solely on enjoying life. Therefore, the Revolution actively and boldly prepared for an “explosion.”

This explosion ended the phase of strategic retreats and marked the start of the Revolution’s slow and steady progress. It was not about establishing a republic but rather “republicanizing” the monarchy. The Revolution overthrew the Bourbons of the firstborn branch and installed a usurping prince who took the name Louis Philippe. With him, the bourgeoisie gained power, and the nobility yielded the forefront of political life.

Relieved to see that things had not escalated to the worst, such as a republic and the Terror, most supporters of the deposed faction continued to live peacefully, now in political exile and obscurity. Once again, it seemed wise to accept what little remained to them rather than react, provoke the enemy, and lose everything.

Meanwhile, revolutionary enthusiasm persisted and grew stronger. In 1848, the Revolution overthrew Louis Philippe, and during a short republican period (1848-1851), it elected a commoner prince and even more clearly a usurper, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, as president. He quickly declared himself Emperor Napoleon III and ruled until 1870. His regime was even more “republican,” bourgeois, and secular than Louis Philippe’s. After Napoleon III’s fall due to Prussia’s victory, two extreme movements emerged: an electoral win for the Count of Chambord, the heir to the legitimate monarchy, and a communist uprising. However, neither the Count of Chambord nor the communists gained power. The bourgeoisie took control.

What occurred in France during these 100 uninterrupted years of the Republic?

The movement toward anarchy and equality persisted, but now on a different level. Two enemies targeted during the explosive and violent phase ending in the Terror were eliminated: the dynasty and the nobility. Only the bourgeoisie remained, and it had to be overthrown.

From this perspective, the history of France over the past 100 years can be summarized as a slow and ongoing decline of bourgeois power, a persistent erosion of individual property rights, and a gradual infiltration of socialist mentality even into the ranks of the clergy and the bourgeoisie. It would take too long to detail the ups and downs of this process, which is more recent and better known. Suffice it to say that, throughout this process, the behavior of the bourgeoisie exactly mirrored that of the nobility: a constant tendency to “give in some so as not to lose all,” and enjoy the present complacency without genuine concern for the future.

In short, after a century of republican agitation and counter-action from monarchists and aristocrats, and over 100 years of bourgeois republic, everything in France is moving toward fully implementing the program of terrorists, “montagnards,” “cordelliers,” and the communist Babeuf. Gradually, and without bloodshed, terrorism has become the great victor. All that is needed is for things to continue smoothly as they are, and sooner or later, France will be communist. Communism has implicitly won because it exists within socialism as a chick in the egg, and socialism has already triumphed.

* * *

Can we draw a lesson for the present from this collection of facts? We will see in another article.