On the Revolution

The French Revolution has gone down in history as an exemplary revolutionary event. The most challenging periods of its history, including the excesses of the revolutionary process and the hardships experienced by those involved (ultimately affecting all of French society), served to strengthen its universal message that complete transformation of the social order is a necessary condition for the emancipation of the individual and the formation of the citizen. This message would continue to resonate in the slogans of subsequent generations of revolutionaries around the world, from Haiti to Petrograd.

In light of the recent rise in right-wing tendencies and the success of conservative politicians, it is reasonable to conclude that the revolution is a thing of the past. Concerns regarding the viability of revolution as a historical project, which has only intensified in recent decades, can be attributed to one of the factors contributing to “left-wing melancholy.” In order to offset the sense of decadence, it could be argued that the 21st century has been a period marked by a notable number of revolutionary events, including the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Spring Revolution in Myanmar. The designation of these movements as revolutions is a matter of ongoing discussion and will be determined over time.

The tone of this debate, as well as the mixture of hopes and fears about future revolutions, is linked to the historical situation in which we find ourselves. This scenario can be characterized as a crisis of modernist politics. The French Revolution was a pivotal event in the development of modern politics. The crisis of such a politics means that, on the one hand, it is a passing phenomenon and needs to be overcome, and on the other hand, it still sets the semantic coordinates of our political life and our political thinking. What is the nature of modern politics, and what is its relationship to revolution — including the French Revolution?

Public Order and Political Order

In the contemporary political landscape, two distinct orders of human cooperation coexist: the social order and the political order. The political order refers to the system of governance, legal standards, and regulations, as well as any formal or informal structures of authority. Social order refers to the established framework of social interactions and the mechanisms in place to regulate these interactions. These groups and unions represent a diverse range of interests, including economic interests, professional connections, religious practices, and shared hobbies. Social order also encompasses the demographic and structural conditions that facilitate interaction among individuals, including gender, age, background, wealth, education, and other factors.

The social and political orders of coherence are separate but not detached from each other; they converge and repel but do not coincide. These elements are often interconnected, making it challenging to distinguish between them. People exist in both of these orders simultaneously, and they dispose of them and construct them together. The ongoing competition for the right to govern and construct these systems, as well as the struggle for the degree of influence on one or the other order, is what is typically referred to as politics today. Consequently, political struggle unfolds in both public and political life.

The social order, as a distinct political domain, is a more recent development compared to the purely political order. Signs of its isolation became evident during the course of the French Revolution itself. As is well understood, a new class—that is, a social group — began to assert political dominance at that time. Accordingly, the social, or public, logic of the revolutionary event is now being recognized within its political context. Since then, it is the social component that distinguishes a full-blooded revolution from both a rebellion (a spontaneous, one-time, and clearly localized uprising) and a coup (i.e., seizure of power). In the contemporary social context, the interpretation of the French Revolution has become outdated. However, it is undeniable that the tension between social and political orders, as well as social and political demands, had a significant impact on the revolutionary years following the capture of the Bastille.

The interplay of the social and political elements of the revolutionary struggle was particularly evident outside of continental France. The revolutionary spirit of those years manifested not only in Paris, but also in other European cities, although the primary focus of European political commentators was on the events in Paris. The demand for autonomy was subsequently articulated in the French colonies with notable fervor. Consequently, the enslaved population of the sugar plantations in San Domingo rebelled against their white oppressors, fighting not only against the French colonial administration but also against the Spanish and British claims to the island. In the aftermath of a series of revolutionary uprisings, slavery in San Domingo was abolished, and the first independent state of Latin America, Haiti, came into existence.

During the nineteenth century, the process of establishing a public order that was distinct from but influenced by politics gained significant traction. This process reached its greatest scale at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. At that time, a significant shift took place on the European continent, marked by the gradual expansion of the social environment of human existence. This shift transcended the everyday experience and perceptions of individuals, leading to the emergence of society as an alternative to both peasant communities and urban communes. Community ties came to be superseded by social ties, and the community itself became the focal point of political struggle.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, an increasing number of people were discovering politics. They formed associations, which grew in number along with the number and size of political parties. Consequently, social life and political practice were formalized as autonomous yet closely interrelated spheres involving an increasing number of participants. They asserted that they collectively transformed social relations and the underlying structures, determining the pace and direction of social and political transformation, and making choices of historical significance. This form primarily describes the formation of society and its politicization in the context of the continental countries, Britain, and the Russian Empire. However, it is important to note that political ideas and systems developed independently in various regions around the world. After breaking away from the traditional economy and facing colonial coercion, it was only natural that they would eventually turn to collective action.

The French Revolution demonstrated the inherent connection between shifts in the social order and the emergence of new political regimes. It also highlighted the vast potential for social transformation. During the French Revolution, a new order emerged, shaping the social and organizational structures of society for years to come. As is typical, the search for this order and its subsequent establishment — the most important components of the revolutionary process — were also carried out jointly and with cooperation. Festivals, public gatherings, assemblies, and confrontations of varying degrees of severity, as well as meetings in tennis courts, were all means of searching for a new order, which ultimately encompassed both political and social aspects.

In the current global climate, there is a noticeable discord between the social and political dimensions of human coexistence. The revolutionary events of the 21st century provide compelling evidence for this assertion. All revolutionary events of the present, successful and unsuccessful — from the Bulldozer Revolution (i.e., the revolution of October 5, 2000, which ended with the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic) to the Arab Spring and beyond — are characterized by a weakening of social logic. The events in question were met with success, resulting in the overthrow of power, also known as a coup d'état. This shift in leadership effectively removed the need to revolutionize the social order, at least for the time being.

As a result of the revolutions and social asymmetries that occurred in the region, social transformations, if they happened, were far from revolutionary, both from the point of view of radicalism and mass interests. A notable feature of the revolutionary events of the 21st century is the minimization of the social component, which distinguishes them strongly from previous centuries' revolutions. If, in the past, the seizure of state power was a means of social revolution rather than a goal for revolutionaries (as was the case during the French Revolution and the October Revolution, for example), this is no longer the case. In today's world, social movements and conflicts have evolved into a means of reshuffling political elites and changing rulers.

Ideas and Ideologies

Revolution is not only a socio-political phenomenon; it is also an intellectual one. First, the revolutionary process itself and all subsequent developments can be regarded as a continuation of political discourse, albeit through alternative means. Secondly, revolutionary movements often evoke a range of responses from their supporters and opponents, who seek to comprehend and explain their motivations. In some cases, individuals have attempted to incorporate its radicalism into the domain of intellectual and artistic experimentation. The French Revolution was a significant event that had a profound impact on Europe for centuries. It was a period of immense upheaval, characterized by both terrifying and inspiring moments.

Furthermore, the French Revolution itself gave rise to a number of strong and enduring ideas. Therefore, the well-known political ideologies of today — conservatism, liberalism, and socialism — were established through political struggles, marked by alternating periods of victory and defeat. The ongoing competition among ideologies is a hallmark of contemporary politics. Additionally, the term “ideology” itself encompasses the phenomena of both its orders, social and political. When applied to the purely political order, ideology is defined as a system of ideas that political subjects and institutions are oriented towards. This includes the previously mentioned conservatism, liberalism, socialism, as well as nationalism, anarchism, and others. When applied to the social order, ideology implies the political content of any practice or material and cultural phenomenon that sets the conditions for thinking about the world.

While the French Revolution gave rise to ideologies that remained pivotal in people’s political lives until the late 19th century, today's classical political ideologies play a less dominant role in political conflicts. At the same time, they have not gone anywhere and still exert a significant influence on the political actions, arguments, and rhetoric of people, especially those actively involved in politics. It is inaccurate to suggest that we are in a post-ideological world, as some believed following the end of the Cold War. There are simply many more ideologies, and when they collide with each other, they form entirely new hybrid arguments based on the synthesis of disparate ideas about the world and man.

When discussing ideologies, it is crucial to acknowledge the influence of modern political thinking, which is characterized by ideologized attitudes such as Eurocentrism, progressivism, and scientism. However, the target of criticism of each of these “isms” is, of necessity, modernity itself. What are the reasons for this? The ideological core of any modern attitude is its position on modernization. The term “modern” has historical roots, denoting specific phenomena such as modern thinking and modern trade. It also encapsulates an aspiration to embrace change and innovation. In essence, modern politics is characterized by a constant process of modernization. Even the projects of conservatives intent on reversing change, on returning to some tradition and pre-modernity, were ultimately only alternative versions of a modern order in which pre-modern phenomena were reinvented anew, if not invented from scratch. However, most social revolution programs were based on the promise of progress (technical, scientific, social, etc.) and total modernization of the order.

When evaluating modern ideologies and the associated “isms,” one crucial factor should always be considered. Both opponents and admirers of the French Revolution believed that it was a continuation of the Enlightenment project by other means, or at least was indirectly influenced by Enlightenment ideas. However, the Enlightenment fervor extended far beyond the collective task of packaging a body of information into a national encyclopedia. From its inception, the Enlightenment has been regarded as a significant endeavor for the liberation of humanity, with enlightenment as both a theoretical concept and a practical process being crucial components of this liberation.

Enlightenment emancipation was understood as a universal program of maturation, the development of the individual's independent will and intellect. Given the prevailing perspective that humanity was divided into nations, modernist and progressive logic suggested that different regions were developing at different rates, albeit in a similar direction. Enlightenment universalism demanded not only the freedom of all, but also prescribed how, when, where, and by whom this freedom was to be realized. It was prescribed to be realized in every way (by any means), everywhere and anywhere, by everyone and everybody, even if not at the same time.

The modern imagination was influenced by the Enlightenment project, which, unlike the modern project in general, did not assume territorial boundaries. This property is exemplified in the contemporary political landscape on numerous occasions. It is evident in the political excesses of enlightenment and emancipatory programs implemented later in different countries and regions. Drawing from the legacy of the French Revolution, these programs frequently exhibited unintended consequences, highlighting the need for careful consideration of their impact. These policies involved the new colonization of countries and peoples, the deportation of various populations to develop land, the forcible formation of ethnic groups with invariable interference in their traditional ways of life, and the imposition of hegemonic forms of beliefs, languages, and cultural patterns. In this sense, the French Revolution symbolized the ambition and boldness of the modernizer, offering a call to action: “Come, see, change.” The same can be said of the other social revolutions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The contemporary left faces a significant challenge in navigating the balance between challenging this audacity and preserving the emancipatory message and liberating effect of the revolution.

Overcoming Space, Speeding Up Time

The brutality of modern politics is not confined to the history of European colonialism, which, in the nineteenth century, that is, after the French Revolution and Restoration, reached the scale of a colonial race of empires. During the twentieth century, the aggressive, dark logic of modernization came into full play. The United States’ policy of segregation, South Africa’s apartheid regime, Japan’s occupation of Korea and Taiwan (then regarded as a key modernizer in its region), the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs in 1948, and the Soviet national policy, which included the seniority of the RSFSR among the republics and the forced resettlement of a dozen ethnic groups in new territories, are examples of policies that have had significant global impact. This list is not exhaustive. It is also important to consider the socio-technical aspects of this project, which include the organization of large-scale industries, the construction of transport highways and subways, and the industrial development of land, underwater, and subway space. These projects have demonstrated revolutionary engineering and scientific ideas, pushing the boundaries of human and natural capabilities without regard for the severe consequences. These projects have also resulted in the tragic loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

The French Revolution's universalist message does not negate its national and constitutional character, which laid the political and institutional foundations for the civil nation. Consequently, the political structure of the new order took the form of the nation-state, establishing a model for a series of subsequent national liberation movements — the “spring of nations.” The right to self-determination, a principle currently upheld by Ukraine in its resistance to Russia's imperialist aggression and by Palestine in the face of ethno-political violence from Israel, draws from this national liberation impulse. Concurrently, the revolution, irrespective of its national or local characteristics, exerts transnational political effects. Once recognized as a national revolution, it cannot be completely confined within its national boundaries. The changes are too significant, and there are too many opposing forces, interest groups with their own agendas, and reference points that divide the revolution into different factions. There are numerous examples that demonstrate this point. For example, we can cite the Haitian Revolution and the Decembrist uprising.

It is also important to mention historical sentiments, another typically modern phenomenon inextricably linked to the French Revolution. The progressivist vision of history, which gained traction across the European continent in the 19th century, compelled us to embrace the future of society. To feel historical meant to detach oneself from the past and to gaze into the future, to stand towards it, to anticipate it. However, the critical attitude toward modern thinking and progress has affected the direction in which historical feeling has been moving for several decades. The revolutionary event today, if it is still possible, as before, presupposes the abolition of the past. The key distinction is whether it is supplanted by a new past or a new future. The profound transformations brought about by modern politics, particularly the French Revolution, have provided unequivocal affirmation of the future. The revolutions of the present century suspend this question. Anticipation of the future is now often associated with anxiety rather than with new possibilities, exciting alternatives, and a better world.

This shift is evident in various aspects of our society, including academic discourse, activist initiatives, and even the political landscape of many states. The events of the past year have been challenging, to say the least. However, it is important to remember that the politics of hindsight has replaced the historical sense that was once a sense of impending novelty. However, it is important to note that some cases of preoccupation with the past rather than the future do exist. In these cases, the connection between the present and the past becomes a major obsession, creating a cycle in which the movement of people and things becomes a looped, self-contained destiny. The result is a politics of endless retrospect, for which history is a kind of prehistoric space of societal or state existence. Such a policy often leads to revanchist and/or imperialist tendencies. A glaring example that must be highlighted is Russia's military aggression against Ukraine in 2025.

Revolution and War

Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine commenced in the spring of 2014 and escalated into a full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022. It serves as a foundational framework for analyzing contemporary political history and geopolitical dynamics. This is true even when the subject of discussion is the French Revolution, especially if the discussion turns out to be the starting point for a conversation about the revolution itself. Historical revolutions have taken opposing stances in regard to interstate wars, whether by responding to them or even claiming to transform the confrontation between states into a civil conflict. For instance, the renowned leftist concept of transforming the imperialist war into a civil war was not only embraced by the Bolsheviks but also by numerous other representatives of the Second International.

Concurrently, the discussion on revolutions during war necessitates contemplation of the underpinnings of radical political action. War and revolution, as political phenomena, share several commonalities. War and revolution are both representations of conflict, whether between states or within society. They also represent ways to resolve this conflict. Both war and revolution indicate a disruption in political relations, whether between states or between social groups. Both war and revolution involve armed conflict. Both war and revolution imply a redistribution of spheres of influence, as well as a change in the order that led to their formalization. Both war and revolution represent a political conflict of such magnitude that politics ceases to employ exclusively discursive and normative means, mobilizing technology and the living power of human bodies. It is important to note that both war and revolution have the potential to impact individuals in a conflict zone, including those who may find it challenging to make political decisions. These situations can have serious consequences, including loss of life and health. In this sense, both war and revolution necessarily entail a compulsion to conflict, even to the point of forcing an existential conflict.

However, it is crucial to understand the fundamental difference between war and revolution. As phenomena of political life, they are in a completely different relationship with historical time. War, even drawing upon the military conflicts of the past and leveraging their resources (imagination, knowledge, propaganda), often takes the form of an extra-historical type of conflict. This argument is frequently invoked by conservatives and even by those who are inclined to support military aggression. It asserts that “there have always been wars,” and that it is ineffective to attempt to change this state of affairs. In some cases, individuals who do not support the war may also experience feelings of helplessness and political humiliation in the context of political repression, as seen in war-torn Russia. They regard the war as a natural disaster whose onset and conclusion appear to be independent of the citizens’ will, instead being influenced by chance or the arbitrary nature of authoritarian power. Explicitly pro-war and militaristic slogans often draw inspiration from the past, as they claim to defend the victories and greatness of a nation in times of war. There are numerous historical instances of such exploitation of the past, but in the present day, it is most readily identifiable by paying close attention to Russian military propaganda. In it, the military aggression against Ukraine is depicted as a continuation of the Soviet soldiers' efforts to fight fascism and defeat it in 1945. In contrast to war, revolution, given its inherent connection to political modernity, is inherently modern in nature.

However, it is important to note that wars and revolutions are tangible occurrences. These individuals are living people who make decisions and take actions, either deliberately or inadvertently. From a political standpoint, historical sentiment, regardless of its orientation towards the past or future, is derived from action, including military action. The Russian expansion and aggression in Ukraine is driven, above all, by the idea of history, which is oriented towards eternity. Even the past, as viewed through the lens of propagandists and conservatives, is a means to examine the vast temporal distances from the origins of “historical Russia” and the evolution of its “traditional values.”

Russia's war against Ukraine aligns with the historical policies the Russian state is currently implementing. By asserting control over specific territories, it suggests an expansion of Russian history beyond established boundaries. Historical fatalism is only fueled by the voluntarism of its political leadership. The prevailing official historical narrative in Russia is characterized by the exclusion of the Revolution from its past, perceiving it as a historical misstep. In this regard, the regime's ideology can be regarded as counter-revolutionary. This is not an accident; revolution is, above all, a demarche against eternity, against political destiny.

As previously mentioned, both war and revolution presuppose a certain degree of compulsion to conflict. However, one of the issues that can be seen as a symptom of the crisis of modern politics is actually the opposite. It is important to note that political struggle is increasingly viewed as a form of coercion, at least in certain circumstances. Even the leaders of several modern states (including Russia, Ukraine, and the United States) appear to have assumed the presidency through chance circumstances, initially lacking any intention of engaging in politics. The lack of engagement in politics was accompanied, it seems, by the complete separation of the political order from the social order, and the rapprochement of politics with the order of immaterial culture (that is, culture as a domain of values, moral feelings, and emotional demands). However, the war that erupted in 2014, shortly after the revolutionary events of Maidan, demonstrated the futility of eliminating politics as confrontation by exempting it from the political process. The question is how to transition from military confrontation — that is, the destructive politics of death, force, and the economic and technological superiority of states — to politics as a means of collectively building, including through contestation, new orders of life.

The French Revolution and modern politics in general have opened up a wide horizon of political participation and a broad field for political action. Today, when we reflect on its emancipatory message, we are prompted to consider the forms of action that are most suitable for the current era. If the transformation of the social order is no longer the condition of political emancipation, then it is essential to define these conditions. It is noteworthy that the revolution initially entailed a significant political confrontation. On the one hand, it promised political emancipation, and on the other hand, it already demanded from its participants a certain degree of freedom, expressed in the desire to change something. The image of a man chained, yet unaware of his shackles (and thus anticipating positive news about the possibility of breaking them) became a common political allegory of modernity. A recent critique of modern politics suggests that such news can be a dangerous illusion or, at its best, a manifestation of force, an intervention of outside knowledge. The notion of revolution as a vehicle for conveying a novel message is indeed a valid one.

‍

^{This article is an abridged and adapted version of the preface to the book Le Sens des révolutions: De la Bastille à Maïdan (2025).}

‍