Article #448-2 | Gutenberg Articles

Excerpt

Excerpt from The Psychology of Revolution, by Gustave Le Bon

The maximum of violence in these persecutions is attained when
the triumphant party is defending a belief in addition to its
material interests. Then the conquered need hope for no pity.
Thus may be explained the expulsion of the Moors from Spain, the
autodafes of the Inquisition, the executions of the
Convention, and the recent laws against the religious
congregations in France.

The absolute power which is assumed by the victors leads them
sometimes to extreme measures, such as the Convention's decree
that gold was to be replaced by paper, that goods were to be sold
at determined prices, &c. Very soon it runs up against a wall of
unavoidable necessities, which turn opinion against its tyranny,
and finally leave it defenceless before attack, as befell at the
end of the French Revolution. The same thing happened
recently to a Socialist Australian ministry composed almost
exclusively of working-men. It enacted laws so absurd, and
accorded such privileges to the trade unions, that public opinion
rebelled against it so unanimously that in three months it was
overthrown.

But the cases we have considered are exceptional. The majority
of revolutions have been accomplished in order to place a new
sovereign in power. Now this sovereign knows very well that the
first condition of maintaining his power consists in not too
exclusively favouring a single class, but in seeking to
conciliate all. To do this he will establish a sort of
equilibrium between them, so as not to be dominated by any one of
these classes. To allow one class to become predominant is to
condemn himself presently to accept that class as his master.
This law is one of the most certain of political psychology. The
kings of France understood it very well when they struggled so
energetically against the encroachments first of the nobility and
then of the clergy. If they had not done so their fate would
have been that of the German Emperors of the Middle Ages, who,
excommunicated by the Pope, were reduced, like Henry IV. at
Canossa, to make a pilgrimage and humbly to sue for the Pope's
forgiveness.

Explanation

Gustave Le Bon’s The Psychology of Revolution (1913) is a work of political psychology that examines the psychological and social forces driving revolutionary movements, the behavior of crowds, and the dynamics of power shifts. Le Bon, a French social psychologist best known for The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1895), applies his theories of collective behavior to historical revolutions, arguing that revolutions are not merely ideological or economic struggles but are deeply rooted in irrational, emotional, and psychological forces. The excerpt provided explores the extremes of revolutionary violence, the fragility of radical regimes, and the pragmatic strategies of post-revolutionary rulers. Below is a detailed breakdown of the text, its themes, literary devices, and significance, with a focus on the passage itself.

Context of the Excerpt

This passage appears in a section where Le Bon analyzes the aftermath of revolutions, particularly the behavior of victorious factions and the challenges they face in consolidating power. He draws on historical examples—such as the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution, and early 20th-century socialist experiments—to illustrate patterns of revolutionary excess, backlash, and the eventual moderation enforced by political necessity.

Themes in the Excerpt

Violence and Ideological Fanaticism Le Bon argues that the most extreme persecution occurs when a triumphant group combines material interests with ideological zeal. The conquered are shown no mercy because the victors believe their cause is just and sacred. He cites:
- The expulsion of the Moors from Spain (1492–1609), driven by religious and nationalist fervor.
- The auto-da-fés of the Inquisition, where heretics were publicly executed to uphold Catholic orthodoxy.
- The executions during the French Revolution (e.g., the Reign of Terror), where the Jacobins eliminated perceived enemies of the Republic.
- Anti-clerical laws in France (early 20th century), targeting religious orders in the name of secularism.
The implication is that belief systems amplify cruelty—when people act in the name of an idea (e.g., religion, revolution, nationalism), they justify atrocities that pure self-interest might not.
The Limits of Radicalism: Economic and Social Reality Le Bon observes that revolutionary regimes often overreach, imposing utopian or impractical policies that collide with economic laws and public opinion. Examples:
- The French Convention’s economic decrees (e.g., replacing gold with paper money, price controls) led to hyperinflation and scarcity, turning the public against the revolutionaries.
- The Australian Socialist ministry (likely referring to the short-lived 1904 Chris Watson Labor government) enacted pro-union laws so extreme that they provoked a backlash and swift overthrow.
The key idea: Revolutions fail when they ignore material constraints. Public opinion rebels against policies that disrupt daily life, leading to the downfall of radical regimes.
The Pragmatism of Post-Revolutionary Rule Most revolutions, Le Bon argues, are not about ideological purity but about replacing one ruler with another. The new sovereign’s survival depends on balancing class interests rather than favoring one group exclusively. Historical examples:
- French kings (e.g., Louis XIV) suppressed both the nobility and the clergy to prevent either from dominating the monarchy.
- German Emperors in the Middle Ages (e.g., Henry IV) lost power when they allowed the Church (under the Pope) to become too strong, leading to humiliations like the Walk to Canossa (1077).
The lesson: A ruler who allows one class to dominate becomes its puppet. Successful monarchs (or post-revolutionary leaders) must divide and rule, ensuring no single faction gains overwhelming influence.

Literary and Rhetorical Devices

Historical Parallelism Le Bon structures his argument by juxtaposing diverse historical cases to show recurring patterns. For example:
- The French Revolution’s economic failures are linked to the Australian Socialist experiment, suggesting that radicalism is doomed regardless of era.
- The Spanish Inquisition and French anti-clerical laws are grouped to show how ideological persecution transcends time.
This technique reinforces his claim that revolutionary psychology is universal.
Cause-and-Effect Reasoning He presents a chain of consequences:
- Ideological + material motives → maximum violence (no pity for the conquered).
- Extreme policies → economic collapse → public backlash → regime’s downfall.
- Favoring one class → loss of sovereignty (as with the German Emperors).
This logical progression gives his argument a deterministic quality, suggesting that these outcomes are inevitable.
Irony and Understatement
- The Australian Socialist ministry’s rapid overthrow is described with dry irony: laws "so absurd" that they provoked a unanimous rebellion in just three months.
- The German Emperors’ humiliation is framed as a cautionary tale, with Henry IV’s pilgrimage to Canossa serving as a symbol of lost authority.
Authoritative Tone Le Bon writes with declarative certainty, using phrases like:
- "This law is one of the most certain of political psychology."
- "The kings of France understood it very well..." This rhetoric positions him as an objective observer of historical laws, not just a commentator.

Significance of the Excerpt

Critique of Revolutionary Idealism Le Bon, a conservative thinker, skeptic of democracy and mass movements, argues that revolutions are destructive and self-defeating. His examples suggest that:
- Ideological purity leads to tyranny (e.g., the Convention’s executions).
- Economic radicalism fails (e.g., paper money, price controls).
- True power lies in pragmatism, not revolution.
This aligns with his broader view (in The Crowd) that masses are irrational, and revolutions are emotional outbursts, not rational progress.
Warning Against Class Dominance His analysis of post-revolutionary rule reflects a Machiavellian perspective: a ruler must balance factions to survive. This was a counterargument to Marxism, which predicted proletarian dominance. Le Bon suggests that any single-class rule leads to instability, whether by the nobility, clergy, or proletariat.
Relevance to Early 20th-Century Politics Written in 1913, the text foreshadows the failures of radical movements in the coming decades:
- The Russian Revolution (1917) would later see Bolshevik economic policies (War Communism) collapse, much like the French Convention’s decrees.
- The rise of fascism could be read as a reaction against socialist overreach, similar to the Australian backlash Le Bon describes.
Psychological Insight into Power Le Bon’s focus on belief systems and class equilibrium offers a psychological theory of governance:
- Violence peaks when ideology and interest align (e.g., religious persecution).
- Power is maintained through division, not unity (a precursor to divide-and-rule strategies in political science).

Key Takeaways from the Text Itself

Revolutions are most brutal when ideologues gain material power.
- The combination of belief (religion, revolution) and self-interest (land, wealth) removes all restraint.
Radical economic policies always fail because they defy reality.
- Whether it’s paper money in France or union privileges in Australia, utopian schemes collapse when they ignore human nature and market forces.
Successful rulers avoid being captured by any single class.
- The French monarchy lasted by playing nobility against clergy.
- The German Emperors fell by submitting to the Pope.
Public opinion is the ultimate check on revolutionary excess.
- When policies become too disruptive, even a revolutionary regime loses support (as in Australia).

Conclusion

This excerpt encapsulates Le Bon’s pessimistic view of revolutions as cycles of violence, overreach, and eventual moderation. His historical examples serve as warnings about the dangers of ideological extremism and the necessity of pragmatic governance. While his elitist and anti-democratic biases are evident (he distrusts mass movements), his observations on the psychology of power—particularly the balance of class interests—remain relevant in political analysis. The passage is a masterclass in using history to illustrate psychological laws, blending narrative examples with deterministic theory to argue that revolutions, no matter how radical, must eventually confront the limits of human nature and material reality.

Questions

Question 1

The passage suggests that the most extreme forms of revolutionary persecution arise when the victorious faction’s actions are motivated by:

A. an exclusive focus on material gain, divorced from any ideological justification.
B. a calculated strategy to eliminate all potential future opposition.
C. the fusion of ideological conviction with tangible self-interest.
D. the need to appease a restive population demanding retributive justice.
E. an inherent psychological sadism within the revolutionary leadership.

Question 2

The reference to the Australian Socialist ministry’s rapid downfall primarily serves to illustrate which of the following principles?

A. Socialist governments are inherently unstable due to internal factionalism.
B. Working-class leaders lack the political acumen to govern effectively.
C. Revolutions in democratic systems are doomed to fail due to constitutional safeguards.
D. Radical economic policies that defy practical necessities provoke a unified public backlash.
E. Trade unions, when granted excessive power, inevitably turn against their own governments.

Question 3

The passage’s discussion of the German Emperors’ subjugation to the Pope implies that a ruler’s sovereignty is most directly undermined by:

A. the moral corruption of the ruling class.
B. the inability to project military strength abroad.
C. the failure to secure divine sanction for their authority.
D. the rise of a rival ideological system that challenges their legitimacy.
E. the unchecked ascendancy of a single domestic faction.

Question 4

Le Bon’s assertion that “the first condition of maintaining [a sovereign’s] power consists in not too exclusively favouring a single class” is most closely aligned with which of the following political strategies?

A. The implementation of universal suffrage to distribute power equitably.
B. The systematic suppression of all class-based organizations.
C. The cultivation of rivalries among competing factions to prevent any one from dominating.
D. The establishment of a meritocratic bureaucracy to transcend class interests.
E. The co-optation of intellectual elites to legitimize the regime’s authority.

Question 5

The passage’s tone toward revolutionary movements is best described as:

A. ambivalent, acknowledging both their idealism and their inevitable failures.
B. clinically detached, presenting historical patterns without moral judgment.
C. skeptical and dismissive, portraying them as irrational and self-defeating.
D. cautiously optimistic about their potential for incremental reform.
E. nostalgic for the stability of pre-revolutionary monarchical systems.

Solutions and Explanations

1) Correct answer: C

Why C is most correct: The passage explicitly states that the “maximum of violence” occurs when the triumphant party is “defending a belief in addition to its material interests.” This dual motivation—ideological conviction (e.g., religious orthodoxy, revolutionary zeal) combined with self-interest (e.g., land, wealth, power)—removes all restraint, leading to extreme persecution. The examples (Moors’ expulsion, Inquisition, Convention’s executions) all involve belief systems amplifying material greed, making C the most textually grounded choice.