Reaction to Discussion Topic on “The French Revolution”
“In order for a revolution to transform the society completely, there has to be a certain level of violence inflicted upon the class that resists giving up their class privileges and sense of entitlement.” In other words, people by nature would not give up something without a threat of violence.
The Justification of Violence in a Revolution
People cling to things that they consider their own even at the threat of their own destruction. These include not only property and way of life but abstract things such as a sense of entitlement, birthright, and freedom from want-among others. The threat to the deprivation of these would warrant a response that could also be violent. Why change or be deprived something that you have been enjoying for a long time and which you deeply believed came from Divine Providence.
These may have been the thoughts of the nobility and the middle class before the commencement of civil hostilities of that we called, the “French Revolution”. The First and Second Estates of the “Estates General” could not agree and in the end was supplanted by the Third Estate. A variance of collective convictions among these groups of nobles, middle class, and the Parisian mob and peasantry was sufficient to draw the country in to civil unrest. What gives? Well each group has their own interest to protect to and each believed in the righteousness of their cause and the unjustness of the other. Each believed in a certain degree that one could not survive while the other exists. Numbers on this case usually matter. As with all revolutions, the greater mass usually wins regardless of the weapons of the few.
Revolutions are sudden changes. You need the conviction and political will to change something. Punishments that are swift and decisive should be dealt to those who resisted. Failure to do so would decrease the momentum of change and in the end might reverse itself to the former conditions that spawn it in the first place. Yes, violence may be necessary but not so excessive and unnecessary that might result to calling it, “The Reign of Terror”.
The thought of obliteration or punishment would bring many people to submission. There were only few bloodless revolutions in the history of mankind. They were bloodless because change was ripe and the number of adherents to such changes was so overwhelming.