Scan barcode
alanffm's review
4.0
A remarkable read that only fails in that it is a truncated version of something far greater. Burke's criticism of the French Revolution is genius. He aptly compares it to previous revolutions (most poignantly to the English Restoration) while reminding his readers that they are far from the same. In this, Burke explores the ideological significance of the revolution and - perhaps as an unintended consequence- outlines the tenants of modern conservatism. Burke essentially argues that revolution may have a corrective property, but it can also lead to absolute despotism if it has no head or leadership. He explores the problem of removing higher authority in France and claims that it has and will lead to barbarism. Given the violence and chaos of the revolution (and the many years that followed it) one could say that Burke was quite prolific. Others would argue against this, however, citing how many good things have come out of the revolution. I think both views are correct, but I tend to meditate on Burke's point of view as, I feel, we often forget it.
An exceptionally important read. I would recommend the full and unabridged text.
An exceptionally important read. I would recommend the full and unabridged text.
karnakjr's review
slow-paced
2.0
Interesting if you want to know that the conservative playbook was fully formed at least 230+ years ago.
All the greats are here, including: the absoluteness of property rights; the absolute assuredness that any wealth earned or inherited is rightfully the wealth of the holder, no matter how it was earned; that having a clearly defined upper class makes lower class people happier for having something to aspire to; that if a change ever should be necessary that it should be undertaken slowly, possibly so slowly that no change will happen for generations, or ever; that bloody revolutions will be celebrated by “the Old Jewry”; that if you want to make fun of a European nation you have only to compare them to the obviously inferior Middle Eastern nations; that if there is a problem with the church that we should let the church sort It out; that the church is perfect, so long as it is as Christian as possible (Protestant, by Burke’s estimation); that atheism is true evil; and many others.
He does accurately predict that when problems can no longer be blamed on former rulers that despots will begin to blame critics as counterrevolutionaries. Very accurate to both France and later to many of the 20th century “communist” revolutions.
At one point he poses an interesting psychological idea, that it is better to be oppressed by a monarch than by a democracy. If you are under a cruel monarch, society is with you in bitching about them. If you are under a cruel democracy you feel as if you are alone, because it is everyone around you who has decided you should be oppressed. As we have seen, there are plenty of people to bitch with you if you are in a democratic minority, so politically this doesn’t really check out. I still found it an interesting theoretical point.
All the greats are here, including: the absoluteness of property rights; the absolute assuredness that any wealth earned or inherited is rightfully the wealth of the holder, no matter how it was earned; that having a clearly defined upper class makes lower class people happier for having something to aspire to; that if a change ever should be necessary that it should be undertaken slowly, possibly so slowly that no change will happen for generations, or ever; that bloody revolutions will be celebrated by “the Old Jewry”; that if you want to make fun of a European nation you have only to compare them to the obviously inferior Middle Eastern nations; that if there is a problem with the church that we should let the church sort It out; that the church is perfect, so long as it is as Christian as possible (Protestant, by Burke’s estimation); that atheism is true evil; and many others.
He does accurately predict that when problems can no longer be blamed on former rulers that despots will begin to blame critics as counterrevolutionaries. Very accurate to both France and later to many of the 20th century “communist” revolutions.
At one point he poses an interesting psychological idea, that it is better to be oppressed by a monarch than by a democracy. If you are under a cruel monarch, society is with you in bitching about them. If you are under a cruel democracy you feel as if you are alone, because it is everyone around you who has decided you should be oppressed. As we have seen, there are plenty of people to bitch with you if you are in a democratic minority, so politically this doesn’t really check out. I still found it an interesting theoretical point.
shivangibh97's review
4.0
Very very thought provoking. I want to re read this after reading a bit more about the context in question.
marielaabrown's review
3.0
Well he was right!
I still disagree with may of his sentiments, particularly in the favour of the British constitution. But it is old, outdated and in this context, correct.
Update:
Upon rereading I have gained knowledge about Burke and his political life and his views. This was helpful for a level. Again, although I really disagree with most of his ideas, he’s intelligent and astute and logical so it’s difficult to argue.
I still disagree with may of his sentiments, particularly in the favour of the British constitution. But it is old, outdated and in this context, correct.
Update:
Upon rereading I have gained knowledge about Burke and his political life and his views. This was helpful for a level. Again, although I really disagree with most of his ideas, he’s intelligent and astute and logical so it’s difficult to argue.
More...