The Demise of the July Monarchy

David Kute

History 124B, Professor Ford, Honors Contract 04/11/05

This work is original and unpublished by David Kute

The demise of the July Monarchy had, according to contemporaries, been unexpected. Alexis De Tocqueville had written that “the Revolution of February was unforeseen by all ….”(AT, pg. 229) Another contemporary, Karl Marx, had remarked that “the February Revolution was a surprise attack, a taking of the old society unawares ….”(KM, pg. 245) The Revolution of February 1848 had signaled the end of the July Monarchy and the birth of the successive governments of the Second Republic and the Second Empire. But while the events of the years 1848-1851 had surprised those accustomed to the lull of Louis- Philippe’s regime, nevertheless, these events had obviously transformed French nineteenth century social and political life considerably. In fact, contemporary accounts written after the period reflect the continuing influence the 1848 revolution held within France’s borders. Two accounts in particular, those by Karl Marx in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and Alexis De Tocqueville in The Souvenirs shed light on the period of 1848. Jan Goldstein has written of Marx’s work that “along with Tocqueville’s Souvenirs, the Eighteenth Brumaire is one of the most incisive contemporary analyses of the Revolution of 1848 in France.”(KM, pg. 46) Marx was a social philosopher as well as a socialist revolutionary who had left Paris in 1848. Tocqueville had been born to an aristocratic family and had worked as a member of the Chamber of Deputies throughout the 1840’s. The Souvenirs was part of the Recollections, a memoir of his life, published only long after his death. Both men had taken the period of 1848 and dissected it according to their own theories. It is my contention that the Souvenirs and the Eighteenth Brumaire taken together reveal insights into the period of 1848 based on the clear differences between the two authors.

Karl Marx suggests in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte that French history from 1848 to 1851 is repeating a previous cycle of events. Expanding on Hegel’s idea that major historical events occur twice, Marx believes “the revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793 to 1795.”(KM, pg. 243) Major events are seen as repetitions of previous ones. February 1848 is equivalent to 1789, the June Days the period of 1793-95, and the advent of Louis Bonaparte in 1851 to that of the First Empire in 1799. Marx sees historical figures such as Luther as the Apostle Paul, Napoleon III as Napoleon Bonaparte, and many other figures of the nineteenth century as having their earlier precedents. But there is a reason why the past repeats itself, Marx explains. “The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.” (AT, pg. 243) Men cannot escape the past and the memory of it weighs upon their actions. Therefore, history is bound to repeat itself simply because what has already occurred before is remembered by the people. Marx explains further that “Earlier revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to dull themselves to their own content.”(KM, pg. 245) Man is unable to escape earlier traditions, and looks to the past for guidance on how history, and revolutions, should develop. 1848 is no different, yet Marx felt that it differed from others in its nature. Previous revolutions, such as that of 1789, were more sincere and genuine (KM, pg. 244). The character of the revolution of 1848 is a “parody,” a cheap throwback to the old traditions rather than a real continuation of them. While Marx believes that history is cyclical because of the collective memory of the past within the people, Marx envisions that socialist revolution should depart from the “poetry from the past.”(KM, pg. 245) The socialist revolution, unlike the previous revolutions that have occurred in history, should focus more on the future and less on historical precedents.

Marx also sees the events during this period in terms of class struggle. The bourgeoisie, the proletariat, the lumpenproletariat, and the peasants are all key players in Marx’s analysis. Marx, of course, is well known for The Communist Manifesto, and in the background of the Eighteenth Brumaire are his theories of revolution and class struggle. In other words, throughout the Eighteenth Brumaire there is an evident socialist character to Marx’s views and perspective. Some examples of this are Marx’s predictions of an eventual socialist victory, his expressed sympathy for the working class, and his analysis of the problems that led to the failure of the working class during the period.

Marx is clearly sympathetic to the workers. Speaking of the February Revolution and the republic which followed, Marx relates how “every party construed it in its own way.”(KM, pg. 247) In the same way, the analysis within the Eighteenth Brumaire focuses undue attention to the role of the working class and its view of the revolution. From discussion of the proletarian interpretation of the February Revolution, to calling the June Days “the most colossal event in the history of European civil wars,” to blaming the peasants for the rise of the Second Empire, there is a pattern within the work of sympathizing with the working class.

Predictions of an eventual socialist victory in the revolution also abound in the text. Marx explains that despite the victory of the executive power, the revolution has not ended:

“But the revolution is thorough. It is still journeying through purgatory. It does its work methodically … Now that it has attained this, it perfects the executive power, reduces it to its purest expression, isolates it, sets it up against itself as the sole target, in order to concentrate all its forces of destruction against it. And when it has done this second half of its preliminary work, Europe will leap from its seat and exultantly claim: Well burrowed, old mole!”(KM, pg. 256)

In this passage, the idea is that the revolution will continue and the Second Empire is by no means a permanent government. Rather, the revolution is far from over, and it is “journeying” ahead, its progress eventually leading to the end of another regime, in this case the Second Empire. But what sort of regime would follow that of the Second Empire? An earlier passage in the Eighteenth Brumaire suggests that it may be a proletarian revolution that would end the regime, and that the future holds an inevitable victory for the workers. Marx writes:

“proletarian revolutions … seem to throw down their adversary only in order that he may draw new strength from the earth and rise again, more gigantic, before them, and recoil again and again from the indefinite prodigiousness of their own aims, until a situation has been created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves cry out: Hic Rhodus, hic salta! Here is the rose, here dance!”(KM, pg. 246)

There are various interpretations of the character of proletarian revolutions that can be taken from this passage. One is that the nature of working class revolt is an endless struggle with the other forces of society, one that eventually leads the proletariat to openly break with them on a definite basis. I would like to believe, however, that the passage refers to an eventual victory for the socialists, who are suggestively told “hic Rhodus, hic salta,” signifying it is their turn to take up the mantle of government. Thus the revolution is “thorough” and the proletarian revolution, specifically, is such that its aims will gradually be achieved. Although the evidence is far from conclusive, I would like to believe that Marx foresaw a day that the proletariat had emerged triumphant.

Finally, Marx gives reasons why the revolution of the working class had failed. He writes that the working class “seems unable either to rediscover revolutionary greatness in itself or to win new energy from the connections newly entered into, until all classes with which it contended in June themselves lie prostrate besides it.”(KM, pg. 249) This could be seen as a principle reason why the aims of the proletariat had not been achieved. But there were also many other failures:

“In part it [the proletariat] throws itself into doctrinaire experiments, exchange banks and workers’ associations, hence into a movement into which it renounces the revolutionizing of the old world by means of the latter’s own great, combined resources, and seeks, rather, to achieve its salvation behind society’s back, in private fashion, within its limited conditions of existence, and hence necessarily suffers shipwreck.”(KM, pg. 249)

This move to the private sphere, a behind- the- scenes sort of approach had precipitated its fall from “revolutionary greatness.” Marx clearly felt that these doctrinaire experiments were not the remedy to avoid “shipwreck.” The resources of society cannot be exploited fully for revolution if the working class depends on its own meager resources and the scope of its action occurs behind the scenes. Of course, though, as mentioned above, Marx highlights the survival of other classes as the principle reason the socialist revolutions had failed. In each revolution, the proletariat had allied with one class or another, and a true proletarian revolution will only be achieved when the workers are the only class standing. In his analysis of the problems facing the proletariat, Marx relies upon his socialist perspective.

Marx’s socialist perspective influenced his depiction of the peasants’ role in enabling the return to a French empire. Marx writes that the election of Louis Napoleon on December 10, 1848 “was a reaction of the country against the towns.”(KM, pg. 250) The election of Louis Napoleon had set the stage for the coup d’ etat of December 2, 1851, Marx believed. Thus, the empire was established on the backs of the peasantry, and rural France had indeed conquered urban France. Marx describes why the peasants had supported Napoleon, and why they had betrayed the revolution. One reason was that the peasantry by its nature was isolated from other classes and even itself. “Each individual peasant family is almost self sufficient.”(KM, pg. 258) In being self sufficient, the interaction and dependence of the peasants was centered on only one class: themselves. The cult of Napoleon was also strong, since the first Napoleon had granted free-holding property rights to the peasants during the First Empire. But the popularity of Napoleon alone did not ensure the peasants’ vote for his nephew. The peasants chose Louis Napoleon because they had been assured of a representative who would look out for their interests:

“Insofar as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their life, their interests and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small- holding peasants, and the identity of their interests begets no community, no national bond and no political organization among them, they do not form a class. They are consequently incapable of forcing their class interests in their own name, whether through a parliament or through a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented.”(KM, pg. 258)

The condition of the peasants was such that they constituted a class and at the same time did not. Scattered throughout France, unified in their standing in society but isolated from each other, the peasantry needed a representative who would protect them. Louis Napoleon was the man to represent them, the one to ensure that they would prosper. The state of the peasantry was such that it had given Louis Napoleon the majority support that he needed. The mass of the people had betrayed the republic and voted for a return to the empire. The peasantry had been responsible for the rise of the Second Empire, and the Bonapartes were truly the “dynasty of the peasants.”(KM, pg. 257) The peasants were a key part of Marx’s analysis of the 1848 to 1851 period, yet there were other contemporary interpretations.

Alexis De Tocqueville sees the history of the post- ancien regime period in a different framework than Marx in his Souvenirs. Tocqueville believes that history “can only be explained by accidental circumstances, and that many others remain totally inexplicable.”(AT, pg. 228) Yet while Tocqueville attributes many historical events to the unknown, and others to mere chance, he also feels there are causes responsible for everything, that “chance does nothing that has not been prepared beforehand.” (AT, pg. 228) Thus, Tocqueville seems to be talking more about the observer, the historian, than the truth of history itself. To the observer, there are many things that transpire which appear surprising or inexplicable. Yet, there is nothing that happens by accident, events do not occur magically and are not by nature completely unforeseen. This mechanistic, predestined, and at times inexplicable reality that guides history differs greatly from the views of history Marx entertained. As explained above, Marx saw history as being cyclical due to the memory of traditions in human consciousness. When men embarked on revolution, they looked to precedents, regardless of whether they acknowledged it, and thus history repeated itself twice. Of course, these two frameworks for understanding history clash. While both see historical events as deterministic Marx’s theory of cyclical history is predominantly psychological, and as a theory, while intriguing, represents fantasy more than reality. There is also little factual evidence to back it up, since there is as much different about any two periods in history as there is similar. It must be said, however, that the events in France following 1789 do on the surface seem to betray a cyclical process, and it is interesting that Marx utilized Hegel’s idea and applied it to a period where it seemed most viable. It is also interesting that Marx’s viewpoint is the more supernatural of the two, and it could easily be suggested that the Fates, fortune, or God guides Marx’s world, one in which the proletariat will eventually succeed, and where history repeats itself. At the same time, Tocqueville, in fact, actually acknowledges that historical events have occurred before:

“Nothing more novel had been known in our annals. Similar revolutions had taken place, it is true, in other countries and other days; for the history of our own times, however new and unexpected it may seem, always belongs at bottom to the old history of humanity, and what we call new facts are oftenest nothing more than facts forgotten.”(AT, pg.234)

In a way, then, Tocqueville saw history as repeating itself, yet he never acknowledged that there was a link between the two as Hegel and Marx had, but instead, insisted that they were “forgotten.” Therefore, Tocqueville and Marx differed in their views on the historical framework.

Tocqueville observes the public advent of socialism in 1848, something in which Marx had been a participant. Tocqueville writes that “socialism will always remain the essential characteristic and the most redoubtable remembrance of the Revolution of February.”(AT, pg. 237) He also writes “from the 25^th of February onwards, a thousand strange systems came issuing pell- mell from the minds of innovators, and spread among the troubled minds of the crowd.”(AT, pg. 236) For Tocqueville, socialism had made itself known on the stage of French society during the revolution. As an aristocrat, he could only criticize as “ludicrous” the socialist theories “aimed at destroying inequality of fortune,” “inequality of education,” and “that between a man and a woman.”(AT, pg. 236) Marx, on the other hand, had befriended members of utopian socialist groups such as those of Saint- Simon and Fourier, and had been sympathetic to a proletarian revolution. Marx and Tocqueville represented opposing sides of the political spectrum, sides with an avowed hostility to each other. An official of the July Monarchy and a contemporary socialist thinker could not be more diametrically opposed, especially when it came to personal views on socialism. Another point where Marx departs from Tocqueville relates to viewing French history since 1789 in socialist terms, whereas for Tocqueville socialism had just arrived on the scene. In fact, the utopian socialists had long preceded the 1848 revolution, yet Tocqueville’s recognition of them marks the ascension of socialism into the public sphere of French society.

The causes of the events of 1848 to 1851 were many for both Tocqueville and Marx. Tocqueville cited many causes for the demise July Monarchy, and in fact, had been one of the few who had warned of the danger approaching:

“The industrial revolution … attracted within its walls an entire new population of workmen …. Add to this the democratic disease of envy which was silently permeating it; the economical and political theories which were beginning to make their way and which strove to prove that human misery was the work of laws and not of Providence, and that poverty could be suppressed by changing the conditions of society; the contempt into which the governing class had and especially the men who led it, had fallen …. the centralization that reduced the whole revolutionary movement to the overmastering of Paris and the seizing of the machinery of government; and lastly, the mobilization of all things, institutions, ideas, men and customs, in a fluctuating state of society which had, in less than sixty years, undergone the shock of seven great revolutions, without numbering a multitude of smaller, secondary upheavals.”(AT, pg. 229)

One of these causes requires special mention, that of the centralization of Paris. Centralization of Paris, unlike some of the other causes, could be applied to later events, such as the socialist losses in the June Days, and even the coup d’ etat of Louis Napoleon. Tocqueville believed that during 1804, Napoleon Bonaparte had instituted the centralization of the French government. Following this reform, political life in the capital would take on a new significance. In Tocqueville’s words, “For thanks to centralization, he who reigns in Paris governs France.” (AT, pg. 234) To conquer France and control the country politically, Paris alone needed to be controlled. The consequence was that the rest of territorial France played little significance when it came to politics. When analyzing nineteenth century French history, there are many events that seem to illustrate the idea of “who reigns in Paris governs France.” The Restoration had come to an end in 1830 spurred by revolts in Paris. The July Monarchy also concluded its reign pushed by events in Paris during 1848. The June Days and the coup d’ etat of Louis Napoleon could also be seen as examples of the relevancy of this idea. Yet, as Marx believed, the coup d’ etat of Louis Napoleon was a consummation of the earlier victory at the polls in December of 1848. The peasants’ role in the rise of the Second Empire in a way disproves the theory of the centralization of Paris. The political struggle of the country against the towns had resulted in the victory of the “dynasty of the peasants.” Marx also held different views than Tocqueville on the causes of the events of 1848, which we shall not discuss in depth here. The general causes of the events of 1848 are related to the cycles of history and the revolution in its continuing progress. So in a sense, both men had in a way foreseen the revolution. For the specifics, Marx cites mere historical facts with his own analysis. Marx and Tocqueville cite many causes for the February Revolution and its aftermath up to 1851.

There were also other areas that Marx and Tocqueville shared in common. As contemporaries, both shared contempt for the bourgeoisie. Another similarity was both men’s concept of the revolution as one continuous movement. Tocqueville believed, like Marx, as has already been demonstrated, that rather than being isolated events, each of the regime changes dating from 1789 to 1851 had been a product and consequence of 1789. When it came to revolutions, Tocqueville believed that “there has always been one.”(AT, pg.222) Like Marx, he saw the series of revolutions of the nineteenth century as being really a continuation of the first revolution of 1789. These similarities are outweighed by the differences in the accounts of 1848 by Marx and Tocqueville.

The clear differences in the analyses by Tocqueville and Marx reveal insights into the period of 1848. There were many differences between the content of the Eighteenth Brumaire and the Souvenirs: the historical framework in which to understand the revolution of 1848, the causes of events, and the socialist character of the revolution, to name a few. I believe that the interpretations of 1848 expounded by Tocqueville and Marx reveal great insights into the makeup of the period. The fact that both men were contemporaries, and at the middle of events, only adds to the value of their writings and reflections. For example, Tocqueville was an outsider to socialism, and gave an impression of how the socialist movement had been understood by more conservative elements of the French population. Marx, on the other hand, gives an account that cannot be separated from its socialist bias, and for this it is invaluable as a sort of representative of the other side of the June Days. Overall, the eclectic, individual accounts by Tocqueville and Marx give a contemporary feeling and insight into the period.

The February Revolution of 1848 had resulted in a string of events that had ended the nineteen years of stability the July Monarchy had brought to France. The period would be a landmark event, looked back upon in successive years the same way the revolution of 1789 had throughout most of the nineteenth century. The accounts of two contemporaries interpreted in retrospect the events of the period. Marx and Tocqueville’s accounts of French history could not be more different. As I have argued, the differences between the accounts of 1848 by Marx and Tocqueville give the reader insight into the period.

David Kute

David Kute writes literary fiction pieces, novellas, short stories, song lyrics, writing samples, news articles, miscellaneous fare, and articles for the blogs Rooftop on the Hanok and Mad Sage Astrology. He has lived in South Korea, Mongolia, and Vietnam.