The Great French Revolution, 1789-1793

Written by one of the founders of anarchism, this very readable history examines the revolution from the point of view of the average person. As such, the various machinations of the political bodies take second place to economic changes. Kropotkin sees the major conflict of the period as being between the emerging bourgeoisie, who undermine the revolution by upholding property rights, and "the people," who drive the revolution to destroy feudalism and return collectively owned land taken from them during the reigns of Louis XIV & Louis XV.

Kropotkin sensed that revolution was coming to Russia (and, he thought, Germany and Austria) and he looks to the French Revolution to understand the threats and interests that could derail the more show more radical goals. Not surprisingly, it comes down to middle class greed wearing down revolutionary fervor. But, he ends on an optimistic note claiming that the course of revolution is not linear and that many of the more obscene injustices of 1789 were destroyed forever, in ways that never could have been achieved by mere reform. show less

Kropotkin the great anarchist had a very diverse learning. Biology, geography, literature, politics and history were areas he addressed in his works. In The Great French Revolution he sets out to give an account of the revolution from below. Were other historians often focuses on the perceived leaders and documents Kropotkin let the anonymous masses take the centre stage.

As always in Kropotkin's works the language is easy to grasp and made for the common people. Kropotkin wanted his works to be read by the working man and peasant. If the academic world took interest he was glad, but it doesn't seem to have been his main intention.
If the language is good it has to be said that the chapters don't fit to each other very well. The big show more picture can feel like a bit of a mess. Many of Kropotkin's other works is put together in a more stringent way.

I think Kropotkin chose to write this work because he felt the ordinary people's struggles had been overlooked and he also believed there was (anarcho-)communist tendency among the masses. For Kropotkin, as he tried to show in mutual aid, the common people always have communistic tendencies they turn into some kind of practice. For Kropotkin, as opposed to Karl Marx, the communist society seem to have always been a possibility. By showing the communist tendencies in the french revolution he tries to make this hypothesis stronger.

His argumentation usually feel persuasive (although there is a lack of sources compared to today's serious scholarly research). But there are occasions were it seem like he just argues from a biased point of view. When for example the peasants demands communal sharing of the lands and the workers of Paris opposes the rich this is a spontaneous expression of their inner desires. When on the other hand the farmers rises against the republic they are simply manipulated by the priests.

I haven't read much about the french revolution, so I can't say whether Kropotkin's account gives any new insight that can't be found somewhere else. I would say this probably shouldn't be the first book to read about it, but it might be a good second book to read. For people who will are interested because it is Kropotkin I'll recommend you read "Conquest of bread", "Mutual aid" and "Memoirs of a Revolutionist" first. Then this one may be worth a read. show less