What revolution was more important, the french or the american one ?
While the french revolution seems more symbolic, the american one was more successful.
It's pretty easy to determine which one caused the most buttpain around the planet
Kings and emperors didn't give two shit about some far away colony being ruled democratically, but one of the most ancient and powerful country in Europe? They just couldn't tolerate it, which lead to 20 years of constant warfare
French. Even though it was a complete failure, it introduced the concepts of nationalism, freedom, unity and socialism to the public class, and promised a future free of nobility. Western aristocracy has simply never recovered from this.
You could argue that the Civil War in the US was an attempt to reassert aristocratic control in the United States, while the North fought for the French ideals of freedom and liberty for all.
This. But also the French started the decolonization period for Spain and Portugal, so I'd go for the French.
But also I'd prefered that the French Revolution were more like the American one. The French one have never really ended.
both of them were terrible and ruined the future for everyone, but at least the french revolution serves as a good reminder to rich people to not be complete assholes, the american revolution was just greed plain and simple
American "revolution" can't be considered revolution at all since it didn't provoque any social change, the dominating class was the same.
on the other hand, the french revolution not only meant the substitution of a class for another but intoducend new concepts as >>36594 said and opened the door to Liberalism in Europe and other revolutions like the Haitian (Which was imo much more important and usually is forgotten; Haiti still paying the consequences of those days)
France revolution. Even if it didn't fully achieve its goals it generally made sure every other ruler in Europe had to take few steps down the power ladder and give it to the masses. Also America was a young nation and not wholly interesting to Europe, but France, which had been standing there for 1000 years, breaking apart all of sudden was a sign of times changing.
However, neither revolution invented liberalism, which was more or less product of the era, but both of them surely propagated its message. So from our modern point of view, French revolution affects us more than American revolution (USA would have gained independence sooner or later, just like how other colonies did)
As in influence on world history? French.
Without it the American would likely have not been as effective. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams all went to France after their revolution to learn from them.
The French Revolutionary wars allowed Napoleon to rise, whose importance is pretty self evident.
American revolution used the idea of lumières which originated from French. And French copy American revolution. There were two part of the same process: the apparition of capitalism.
He's just making the argument that the American Revolution borrowed a lot of the ideological causes from the French one. American colonists were pretty familiar with the Revolution in Paris at the time and basically promised social programs for Americans.
The French Revolution definitely had a bigger impact on history, but the influence of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers in France is undeniable.
No onen coaleced against the Patriots because the people in Europe didn't care about some backwoods British colony, but every European monarch was threatened by the happenings in France.
>Jefferson, Franklin, Adams all went to France after their revolution to learn from them.
What? The Founding Fathers went to France well before the Revolution to lobby for help in America. They didn't go during or after the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars.
Wouldn't say it was a continuation of the American revolution, but the two events are tied together somewhat closely, ESPECIALLY some of the leaders of the early republican period of the revolution, before it turned more and more dictatorial and radical.
Mike Duncan has a great podcast called revolutions that covers the entire French revolution in depth. Also covers the American revolutions and English Civil war. Check it out.
If you haven't read Robespierre your opinion on the French Revolution is irrelevant
The general point is that the American bourgeoisie was the more whiggish of the elite. The British / Tory elite were the "Hunters," the anti-liberal land elite who failed to adequately circulate the value form. In contrast the whigs were trade, state and production oriented proto-bourgeois.
The whig - tory dichotomy existed within the colonies, and was decisively terminated by the revolution, where the whigs won (and then split into federalist and anti-federalists).
People often forget that thousands of Colonial tories died in the revolution.
Still, aside from the common ideological background that may have inspired the revolutionnary ideas and that were theorised in France, the two revolutions are hardly the same.
The American one was a war of independance which got backed up with ideas from the Lumières and had one of the first "anti colonialist" ring to it, sure.
The French one was not at all a war for any independance whatsoever, its very reason to be was both an unlikely conjonction of unprecedented popular dissatisfaction and an rising awareness of the ideas of the Lumières to back it up all. What should the Revolution be and should it be spread over the world were two crucial questions until the end of the Terror, as far as I know (therefore I could be wrong), the American one didn't raise as many questions as the French one. The newly found U.S. were more focused on building a new political systems.
It could've been otherwise, had Americans taken part with the French at their Revolution, the exchanges and the alliance between the two nations would've been greater and the bilateral influence could have created something new entirely.
While the American Revolution carries considerable historic weight due to, obviously, being the reason for the United States to exist in the first place; the French Revolution had both more immediate and long-term impact.
Contrary to American romanticized ideas about themselves, they were still just a set of not-so important colonies on the outskirts of civilization. The French Revolution on the other hand took place in the most powerful country in the (cultural and economic) heart of civilization, Europe, and meant the destruction of the Ancien Régime, the end of multiple monarchies, the institution of the Code Napoléon and general standardization, the creation and destruction of numerous nations (most importantly the Holy Roman Empire) and the overture to a small century of rising nationalistic sentiment and revolutions, culminating in the gunshots of Gavrilo Princip.
In short, the American Revolution's impact only became meaningful (roughly said) from 1941 onward, whereas the French Revolution's impact was immediate.
I assume too. But terror is one of the greatest moment of humanity.
>people actually think the american revolution was more important than the french revolution
The French Revolution was the beginning of the end for European monarchies, America was just a rogue colony state that got really lucky, and their influence wasn't really felt globally until the 1900's.
>and promised a future free of nobility. Western aristocracy has simply never recovered from this
They just changed one aristocracy for the other. Modern France is a caste-based society still, with Freemasons and Enarques at the top.
>let's start a Marxist revolution
>in a largely un-industrialized nation that's too big and not advanced enough to actually work
>slander the name of socialism for literally everyone else because psychopaths have an easy time becoming head of state
Rookie mistake comrade
Yeah man, I'm sure all those peasants in the Vendeé were terrible oppressors.
I do agree that the French Revolution was the most influential, though, since it basically invented totalitarianism, based on the desire of intellectuals to remodel society according to their schemes, with millions of people dying at the wake of their desires.
And then there are people who think that this is good and the legacy of the French Revolution is positive.
I would say the French Rev, has a longer lasting effect and pushed some nations into forming ground breaking policies. Hell they had to unite most of the western world just to fight revolutionary france
He actually brought some sort of discussion, while you just resorted to name calling. Leave or actually discuss the topic shitbag.
The American Revolution was not successful at all, in fact it never even happened. The American War of Independence was, and that's an entirely different thing. But there was no revolution. Only the wealth landowners who already dominated the 13 colonies before like a kind of aristocracy were even allowed to vote. The president wasn't even elected by the people. Much of the country still practiced slavery. In effect, for the average American absolutely nothing had changed. Changes came much more progressively during the 19th century.
By contrast, the French Revolution changed everything. It immediately instituted absolute equality of all men, all elections were by universal suffrage, and it abolished slavery and all aristocratic privilege. It applied the principles of liberty and equality, real democracy, the modern concept of the nation-state, and civil law, and then spread all those principles across Europe and indirectly the entire world.
You should also not be confused by the fact it led to the Empire. The French Revolution was not directed against the king at all, but against the aristocracy. The French people remained monarchists, and Napoleon was the first man ever elected to power by universal suffrage (first as first consul, then as first consul for life, then as Emperor). Democracy is not incompatible with monarchy, it's only incompatible with aristocracy.
Ever read plato's republic; Utopianism didn't come into existence with the French revolution
So did many other philosophers, but intellectuals as a caste taking enough power to put their schemes into practice is something that at least in the modern world can be said to have begun in France.
One of the Cliffites has a good book on the failed European revolutions of 1916-1922. The aim was never russia but world wide revolution and things being different in Germany it would have been, and the vanguardist shit of the post 1917 Bolsheviks would have been subsumed beneath the general class movement.
But that's wrong.
While French thinkers did influence the Founding Fathers, the American Revolution took place before the French one did.
As for signaling the end of monarchies...again, not really. The three ohases the " Republic " went through before Napoleon were as inept as they were corrupt, and when he was crowned, he was more or less an enlightened, capable monarch. What cane after him was a return to the Ancien Regime, and no other European country actually lost its monarchy.
>Captcha: French fries
It's a conspiracy.
>But they failed because capitalism was restored in 1956.
The french revolution, of course, because it gave rise to the near-total conquest of the then and now most powerful continent in the world.
America was a backwater at this time. I mean, sure it was at the very least the most significant piece of developed territory for the British, but it doesn't come close to the importance that the French revolutionary wars did. (I'm American btw)
>he was discussing the topic you were callin names
1. I see your problem, you can't read.
2. He wasn't contributing anything, he said a vague generalization about human nature and the French Revolution being a bad assumption. Clearly political, then when he was called out he called somebody a leftist.
So from 1956 to 1992 there was no capitalism in USSR. Despite the fact that a ruling class was appropriating means of production? The proletariat was not ruling since 1953/56 (the transition took 3 years).
Capitalism doesn't exist. It's a buzzword invented by revolutionaries to slander the existing economic system, like conservatives invented "Cultural Marxism" to attack the modern world cultural climate.
>So from 1956 to 1992 there was no capitalism in USSR
From the 1920s until 1992 there was no capitalism in the USSR.
>Despite the fact that a ruling class was appropriating means of production?
Call it a deformed worker's state then like Trotsky did. The fact is that it was not capitalism as it did not function with things such as markets, it was something else.
>Despite the fact that a ruling class was appropriating means of production?
The proletariat never ruled the USSR. It was always the Vanguard Party which ruled it and formed its own class.
Ho a Trotskist. Everything is explained. You're incorrigible like Mao said. It's not surprising that Trotskists were opposing the american intervention in France at the end of war. There is no such thing as a deformed worker's state.
There is only two possibilities : the bourgeoisie rules or the proletariat rules. If you oppose a "deformed worker's state" it just means that you're opposing proletariat state. So bourgeoisie behavior. Filthy trotskist.
If you want to have a serious opinion on class forces in the Soviet Union you need to read Sheila Fitzpatrick on the actual structure of nomenklatura life in the 1930s, where she very clearly points out that the race to appropriate surplus value from the working class was the central aspect of the Ural-Siberian method and the purges.
Similarly, if you haven't read Andrle on how soviet factories and the soviet working class actually lived, your opinion on the matter is useless.
You can also try "Worker in a workers' state" on how the norm was used to increase the speed of production, and the circuit of production, in the fraternal countries, clear examples of the extraction of surplus value from a working class by the nomenklatura.
>You could argue that the Civil War in the US was an attempt to reassert aristocratic control in the United States, while the North fought for the French ideals of freedom and liberty for all.
>freemen wanting to govern themselves is somehow imposing an aristocracy?
Funny how the North had industrial aristocracies while the south had few and far between plantation natural aristocracies if you can even call them that.
I'm not a Trotskyist, I am not even a Marxist. I do however think that Trotsky's assesment of who ruled in the USSR was correct. It was the Vanguard Party/Bureaucracy which formed the ruling class.
>There is only two possibilities : the bourgeoisie rules or the proletariat rules
You are retarded. Have you even read Marx's works? There are far more than two classes in society which marx identifies. A class is defined in Marxist terms by its relations to the means of production, a bureaucratic class like in the USSR had a unique relations to the means of productions which is not comparable to that which Marx identified as the Bourgeois or the Proletariat.
>where she very clearly points out that the race to appropriate surplus value from the working class was the central aspect of the Ural-Siberian method and the purges.
This does not make it capitalism. It sounds to me like both you and the writers you reference have not even read Marx.
The French Revolution created the modern world. The American Revolution created nothing at all.
The American War of Independence created America (well, mostly the French intervention lel).
The french revolution was pretty much the basis for the spring of nations, the american revolution was pretty much just a rebellion. It's not really comparable, American is the american dream country, not the american revolution country, no matter how much internal propaganda the US focus on that war.
>after him was a return to the Ancien Regime
Return of the monarchy is not the same as the return of the Ancien Régime. Louis XVIII had no choice but to allow a "constitution", the Charter of 1814, because absolute monarchy was no longer possible in France. Proof is, when Charles X tried to use a loophole to suspend the Charter he was ousted by another revolution in 1830 (the more liberal July Monarchy who followed would also be overthrown by yet another revolution in 1848).
The Ancien Régime was killed by the Revolution of 1789.
So fucking what? Bongs neutered their own monarchy well before. And the American Revolution got rid of all monarchy for the colonies, not sure how its different. Constitutional Monarchy was the system that reverberated BC in Eurrope not the Mithraic fantasy of the French
>It was the Vanguard Party/Bureaucracy which formed the ruling class.
Was it proletariat or bourgeoisie?
>Have you even read Marx's works?
>There are far more than two classes in society which marx identifies.
Yes, but if we're not under an older system (old communism, slavery, feudalism) it could only be two ruling classes. Don't even argue on that it will be the proof that you does not understand Marxism, and I would say that it's normal for someone who agree with Trotsky.
>a bureaucratic class like in the USSR had a unique relations to the means of productions which is not comparable to that which Marx identified as the Bourgeois or the Proletariat.
Was it bourgeoisie or proletariat? Chose your side. Or maybe it's a older class, a class of feudalism. That's what you mean? The party under Stalin was a feudalistic class?
Please tell me your not American.
Please, I can't deal with another one of my countrymen being this retarded about our history.
The American Revolution influenced the French Revolution, not the other way around.
I would say American. America successfully rebelled against the most powerful empire at the time. It showed that if people could stand up against the most powerful empire, than surely they could do the same for the second.
Muslim Indian State that didn't like the British and the Maratha Hindus so much.
Led by based Tipu Sahib. Tiger of Mysore.
>America successfully rebelled against the most powerful empire at the time
That's some impressive uneducation right here
The British Empire of 1776 wasn't the British Empire of the early 20th century
It wasn't that big and was notably less powerful that many european powers (France, Spain, Austria, Russia).
Pic related, in orange is what the British Empire consisted of at the time of the US Revolution
I've noticed that this anachronism was very popular among Americans, mixing up the 18th British "empire" with the late 19th century one that was a superpower spawing 1/3 of the world, in order to make the revolution look more impressive
Anyway, from a military point of view, the American Revolutionary War was wayyyyyyy less impressive than the French one
See comparison >>36544
Britain's empire in North America was pretty big - but it was also in rebellion! Although they did manage to hold on to the northern and Caribbean parts.
Had a decent chunk of territory in India already too, though.
The french one, you just have to look at the countries that use the metric system or napoleonic inspired law for some simplistic examples.
Though the french revolution cannot be explained without the american one. On the other hand, the american revolution cannot be explained without the philosophy and ideology developed mostly on the francophone world.