Transcription
Hello everybody. This is class number two about the French Revolution. And uh now we are going to deal with the intellectual causes of the French Revolution.
Uh we have to mention that the intellectual clauses uh were an outgrowth of the enlightenment, that intellectual movement of uh that time in Europe in which the reason was the most important aspect of society. Uh we are going to talk about the liberal theory and the democratic theory concerning the philosophers that influenced the different stages of the French Revolution.
Erh in the liberal theory uh we are going to talk about John Lockach uh who wrote the second treaty of civil government. Ver who favored as all these uh philosophers of the liberator theory aristocracy and Montes uh who was famous for his division of powers. Uh we have to uh highlight that this division of powers is not the division of powers that we enjoy in our democracy nowadays, but kind of.
And the democratic theory represented by John Jaguzo, who was a romantic and uh in which uh he um gave all the power to the masses. He wrote the social contract. There is a team missing here as always and uh the discourse on the origin of inequality.
Um as regards the liberal theory, although they were opposed in some aspects, I mean log v and montes uh, there were some common elements. Uh the elements that uh they shared were uh that the state was a necessary evil, the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and the right for the individuals, that is to say individual rights for people.
Um we have to mention that John Lo was considered or is considered the father of liberalism. Um we are talking of 17, 18th century. Uh this political theory uh was included in his book, the second treaty of civil government. Uh he wrote that uh men originally uh lived in a state of nature. Uh there was freedom, uh equality prevailed, and uh there was no government at all. Uh the only law was the law of nature, according to John Lockach. Um each individual enforced uh to protect his natural right, yeah. That is to say the right, the rights to life, the right of liberty, and uh prosperity.
Um but suddenly according, in brief, according to what John Loach wrote in this uh book, uh confusion emerged. That is to say, it was necessary to install, to set up a government. People agreed to form a civil society and set up a government, and uh that is to say, um gave some rights to this uh uh government, not all the rights, some of them were kept for them. As for example, if the government abused people, had the right to overthrow the government.
As regards he, this last point, we have to take into account that John Lo condemned, as almost all these philosophers, absolutism. He denounced the spotic rulers. Remember that this is important to consider because France was ruled by a despotic and absolute ruler, as Louis the 16th. Uh his main points in this book were the natural rights of people, the limited government, and obvious uh tyranny. That, that was very, very important. And obviously, he was uh um he was he influenced the French and the American revolution. Although he was English, well, his writings um went uh far away uh from England and were spread all over the world.
Um the representative of liberalism in France was Ver. He favored aristocracy. He didn't favor the masses at all. He was excited from France. He went to England, and there in England, he learned and he started to read all the works of John Loach. He was impressed for his assertions about liberty. In common with Loach, Pter in common with Loach, state, as we said before, that the state was a necessary evil, and the powers should be limited. The powers of a government should be limited. Uh he also said that all men were endowed by nature with equal rights. This is kind of contradictory because they favor aristocracy. But well, they said that all men were endowed with equal rights.
Um we uh this is for you. Do not confuse vote with uh with democracy, because Voltech was not a democrat. His ideal form of government was an enlightened monarchy uh or a republic dominated by the middle class.
Then Monteskier, he was famous for the division of powers. Uh he was los uh student, and um he wrote a book, the spirit of laws. Uh he also uh followed the theory of log, and obviously he had some common elements with voter. Uh the most important difference between Monteski and Ver and lo is that he denied the idea of a perfect form of government. We said that for Vautell, the perfect form of government was a limited monarchy or uh a republic. Well, for Monteskio, there was not a perfect form of government.
Um he said that to be successful, a political institution must harmonize or agree with the geographical characteristic of a country and also with its level of advancement. That is to say, he talked about despotism. Yes, despotism, limited monarchy, and republic. He said that for vast territories, for very large territories, uh despotism was the perfect form of government for that characteristic. He said that uh for a smaller country, countries, sorry, uh limited monarchy was all right, and the republic for the smallest countries in the world. And he also became famous, as I told you, for the division of powers. He said a division of powers prevented government from becoming absolute, just to control one power over the other, not with the function that the powers has, or the division of power has nowadays in our modern democracy. The system was not intended to favor democracy. Not vote, neither lo, thought or or mises thought of democracy, just to prevent the uh absolute power of the ruler.
Well, contrary to all this, we have the democratic theory of Janja. He was the founder of modern democracy. Uh in his writings, the social contract and discourse on the origin of inequality, he talked about uh this characteristic. Um we remember what lo uh wrote about the origin of men. John Jagus also talked or wrote about this. He said that men originally lived uh in the state of nature, but in contrast with log, this state of nature was a paradise for Janjao. Any individuals, individuals could maintain uh rights without any problem. It was not, as log said, to enforce the rights. No, there was no, there wasn't any problem. Private property did not exist for a long time. Property was shared among the individuals of that society, and every man was equal to his neighbor. That is to say, there was equality.
What happened if everything was a paradise? Well, uh inequality emerged. Different degrees of inequality developed in this kind of utopia. Um the only hope uh to um ensure the continuity of this uh society was to establish a civil society and to surrender all their rights, not some of their rights, at L said, all their rights to the community, to the community. So, who was the community? The majority, that is to say, the masses. For the power was in the masses. Uh they did this by means of a social contract in which they surrendered all their rights to uh this uh uh community, who who had all their rights. In this way, the state, according to Wo, was brought to existence.
What was the state for us? Well, it was, according to him, the the state was the political organized community which has the function to fulfill the expression, or the will of the majority, that is to say, of the masses. The government for Russo was simply the executive power, whose function was to carry out the decision of the majority, that is to say, the masses. And this is important to consider in the second stage of the French Revolution that we are going to talk about in the following class.