The Evils of Revolution

by Edmund Burke

Written at a time when most of Europe supported the French Revolution, Edmund Burke’s prescient and, at the time, controversial denunciation of its mob rule predicted the Terror, began the modern conservative tradition and still serves as a warning to those who seek to reshape societies through violence.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, History, Nonfiction, Essays, Classics, Sociology

85 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1790

About the author

After A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful , aesthetic treatise of 1757, Edmund Burke, also noted Irish British politician and writer, supported the cause of the American colonists in Parliament but took a more conservative position in his Reflections on the Revolution in France in 1790.

Edmund Burke, an Anglo statesman, author, orator, and theorist, served for many years in the House of Commons as a member of the Whig party. People remember mainly the dispute with George III, great king, and his leadership and strength. The latter made Burke to lead figures, dubbed the "old" faction of the Whig against new Charles James Fox. Burke published a work and attempted to define triggering of emotions and passions in a person. Burke worked and founded the Annual Register, a review. People often regard him as the Anglo founder.

Reviews

[Stephanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes you find incredibly worthwhile ideas buried in a sentiment you generally disagree with. While in some ways, Mr. Burke was proven wrong, in other ways his word of caution prevails. Every person who harbors a revolutionary sentiment, who decries the government and governors of various stripe, should read this and be reminded that sometimes tearing everything down isn't as beneficial as improving it, that change comes with a price and should not be instituted for its own sake, that a future of freedom can only be built on a foundation of virtue, and that the state is ultimately the mirror of its people.

[Kyle van Oosterum · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic abridgment of Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France”. As one of the forefathers or conservative political thought, Burke writes eloquently and incisively about tradition, values and the sacredness of institutions. Hence, many political theorists talk of Burkean conservatism - the idea that our instinct should to be reform rather than destroy institutions. Along the way, methodological observations abound and very perceptive comments about human nature are found that resonate to this day. Coupled with his biting wit and fantastic sound bites, Burke makes a compelling case for staying the course and being cautious of too much change when it is done far too fast. Some quotes:

“What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils.”

“Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security.”

“The popular leader is obliged to become active in propagating doctrines, and establishing powers, that will afterwards defeat any sober purpose at which he ultimately might have aimed.”

PERSONAL FAVORITE:
“In my course I have known, and, according to my measure, have cooperated with great men; and I have never yet seen any plan which has not been mended by the observations of those who were much inferior in understanding to the person who took the lead in the business.”

[Laurent · Rating 2 out of 5]

The story goes, after the French Revolution, most of Europe came out in support of the new French democracy. However, Edmund Burke, this gnarly British MP, was pretty sceptical of democracy altogether.

In The Evils of Revolution, Burke does call to attention several of the inherent dangers in democracy: the oppression of the minority, et cetera – quite reminiscient, in fact, of Tocqueville's analysis.

Though democracy has stood the test of time, especially after its rocky modern beginnings in France, we now know that Burke was right about one thing: the destruction of the aristocracy merely gave way to a new aristocracy – that of the rich.

I also find a sliver of truth in Burke's cautionary word regarding revolution and his assessment of the shortcomings of radical political action in general.

This said, Burke spends most of the book flattering the English monarchical system and its constitution, all this having asserted in his opening pages that flattery corrupts both the receiver and the giver.

Objectively, it is an interesting read. Practically, it is an abridged-yet-somehow-still-90-page-long letter, written with the tsole purpose of saying this: France sucks, Britain rules.

[Tiago F · Rating 2 out of 5]

Burke is known as the "Father of conservatism", so I figured I'd try reading one of his most popular books. The book is Burke's thought at the French Revolution of the late 18th century. At the time, Europe largely supported the revolution, and Burke was against it. He viewed it as a threat to the aristocracy of the western world, which its dissolution would make society worse. He was against large social change, and even more so done through violence. He emphasized that changes don't necessarily will make society better, and the role of tradition, order and stability. Revolutions destroy of the fabric of a good society. History has proven him both right and wrong, illustrating the difficulty of navigating the political sphere through a single political ideology.

I didn't finish the book. While I found some interesting thoughts, I found it not worth my time. He was incredibly well articulated, but to me, the formal language made it difficult to read, and even more so given that I lack the historical knowledge to put many of his arguments into their proper context.

If you're more fluent in English and you are very interested in conservatism and the French Revolution, then perhaps you'll get more out of this book than I did.

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Sam Eccleston · Rating 5 out of 5]

Burke was a genius. His analysis of the pitfalls of revolutionary politics, and the limits of political action in general, is in parts nothing short of sublime. Those of a left-wing persuasion may find his arguments pessimistic and hard to swallow, but anyone of a centrist or rightist persuasion is likely to find in Burke the highest expression of many of their most deeply felt judgements about the nature of politics and the condition of mankind.

[Milanimal · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mostly arguments from tradition + property rights > human rights. Can only cynically conceptualize of reform as power grabs. Duly, assurances are made that better the devil you know where it concerns ruling class. The usual "crisis of democracy" type grievances going back to The Republic. After that much bluster about the glorious revolution, but hilariously never mentions the american revolution.

[Schoon · Rating 3 out of 5]

High Toryism > Neo-conservatism & Neo-Liberalism

[Ana · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of this book was uninteresting, but the second half has some interesting insights: democracy is not built on violent upheavals, the destruction of the aristocracy merely gives way to a new aristocracy – that of the rich.

[Steve Mitchell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Takes just over eighty pages to say that after revolution comes the purge of the deposed regime: like all good ideas it is evident in its simplicity.

[Gega Phridonishvili · Rating 4 out of 5]

აქამდე მეგონა ინგლისური ვიცოდი, თურმე ბევრი ვერაფერი, მაგრამ ეგ არ არის აქ მნიშვნელოვანი.

ერთ ვარსკვლავს ვაკლებ, რადგან მოძველებულია. მეთვრამეტე საუკუნის მოაზროვნე ვერ იქნება პოლიტიკურად აქტუალური დღესაც, თუმცა მგონია, ისეთები აქვს გამოცნობილი ამ ტექსტში, ცოტა წინ რომ ეცადა გახედვა, მოახერხებდა კიდეც. თუმცა ის ბრიტანეთის პარლამენტის წევრია და თავს ვალდებულად თვლის, ინგლისის კონსტიტუცია და იმდროინდელი პოლიტიკური წყობა დაიცვას, ამიტომ მაიცდამაინც ამის გამო ნუ დავემდურებით. (მოკლედ, სტილისა და ოდნავი მოძველების გამო ვაკლებ ერთ ვარსკვლავს.)

ბატონი ბურკი ამბობს, რომ თუკი გვინდა კარგი სახელმწიფო ავაშენოთ, ის უნდა აღიარებდეს რაღაც პრინციპებს, რომელზეც მოგვიანებით საზოგადოებრივი ცხოვრება დაშენდება. ვინაიდან ეს პრინციპები ათასწლოვანი პრაქტიკის შემდეგ ყალიბდება, აუცილებელია, სახელმწიფო გამოცდილებაზე აშენდეს. პრინციპები კონსტიტუციად ითარგმნება, რაც შემდეგ ხდება საფუძველი სახელმწიფოს გამართული ფუნქციონირებისათვის. ასე რომ, რამდენიც არ უნდა ილაპარაკონ ფრანგმა რევოლუციონერებმა, გამოცდილი სისტემის რღვევა მხოლოდ და მხოლოდ ქაოსის საფუძველი შეიძლება გახდეს, რადგან პრინციპების რღვევა იმ კანონების რღვევასაც გულისხმობს, რომლებიც ამ პრინციპებზე იდგა.

ბურკი გარდამავალ ეპოქაში ცხოვრობს, მონარქიას აქტიურად უჭერს მხარს, მაგრამ იმიტომ არა, რომ ის ღვთიური ავტორიტეტია. მისთვის ის ტრადიციაა, გამოცდილი ინსტიტუციაა, რომელიც ძალაუფლების განაწილების პირობებში იდეალურად მუშაობს. მისი აზრით, თუკი პრობლემები შეიქმნება, ნელი და ფრთხილი რეფორმებით სახელმწიფოს ისეთი მოდელი ჩამოყალიბდება ან უნდა ჩამოყალიბდეს, რომელიც ძველი სისტემის განახლებული ვერსია იქნება. რაშიც დავეთანხმებოდი მეც იმ დროს რომ მეცხოვრა. ახლა უბრალოდ მგონია, რომ მონარქიის არსებობა სრულ���ად უსაფუძვლოა და პრაქტიკამ აწ უკვე დაადასტურა, რომ არჩეული ლიდერებიც არანაკლებ ართმევენ თავს დაკისრებულ მოვალეობას, უკეთესადაც თუ არა.

და მთავარი რასაც ის ამბობს, ჩემი აზრით, არის ის, რომ არ შეიძლება აიღო თეორია, რომელიც აქამდე არასოდეს გამოცდილა, ვიღაც უცნაური და საეჭვო აზროვნების კაცის თავში მოიხარშა და ამ თეორიის განსახორციელებლად ყველაფერი მანამდე არსებული დაანგრიო. არ შეიძლება მოშალო საზოგადოებრივი ქსოვილი, არ შეიძლება დაანგრიო ავტორიტეტები, არ შეიძლება მოშალო სოციალური წყობა, რომელიც მანამდე არსებობდა, რადგან ყოველ ჯერზე, როდესაც ამას აკეთებ, შენ ანგრევ ბუნებრივ სტატუს კვოს, რომელიც ძალადობრივად არ ჩამოყალიბებულა. კი, შეიძლება ოდესღაც ამ წყობის საფუძველში ძალადობრივი საწყისები ვიპოვოთ, მაგრამ ეს ხომ არ ნიშნავს, რომ ადამიანების ნელი სვლა თავისუფლებისა და ინდივიდუალური განვითარებისაკენ წყალშია გადასაყრელი?! ეს ხომ არ ნიშნავს, რომ აქამდე არსებული კანონის უზენაესობა მოშალო, რადგან რამდენიმე კანონი თვალში არ მოგდის?! განა სისტემა, რომელიც აქამდე არსებობდა, იმდენად გახრწნილი და განადგურებულია, რომ მასში კარგი არაფერია და მისი რეფორმირება შეუძლებელია?!

გარდა ამისა, ბურკი ამტკიცებს, რომ არარელიგიური ადამიანი თავად ადამიანის ბუნების წინააღმდეგ წასვლაა. რელიგია საზოგადოების ქსოვილს ერთ ნაწილად კრავს და რელიგიური ინსტიტუციების საზოგადოების მტრად გამოცხადება, თუკი ამ ბრალდებას ძალიან მყარი საფუძველი არ აქვს (მაგალითად რუსეთის აგენტობა), არ შეიძლება.

ყველა ამ იდეას ის საფრანგეთის რევოლუციისას მიმდინარე მოვლენების ანალიზის მეშვეობით ასაბუთებს, რაც კიდევ უფრო დამაჯერებელს ხდის მის მსჯელობას. ყველაფერი ის, რაც ზემოთ ჩამოვთვალე, რასაც ბურკი აკრიტიკებდა, საფრანგეთში ხდებოდა რევოლუციისას, რაც ბურკს აღაშფოთებს და ამის შესახებ წერს წერილს. ამავდროულად, ეს წერილი ასევე არის მცდელობა ბურკისაგან, რომ არგუმენტირებულად უარყოს საფრანგეთის რევოლუციის გავრცელება ინგლისში, რაც ნამდვილად დამღუპველი იქნებოდა ისეთი ძველი კონსტიტუციური სახელმწიფოსათვის, როგორიც ინგლისია. აი, საფრანგეთის შემთხვევაში რამდენად შესაძლებელი იყო მონარქიული სისტემის რეოფრმაცია სადავოა, მაგრამ ქვეყნის ქაოსში ჩაძირვა სულელური გადაწყვეტილება იყო.

კიდევ ბევრი რომ არ ვილაპარაკო, ეს კაცი საფუძველს უყრის კონსერვატიზმს, ოღონდ ზურა მახარაძეს არა. ეს კაცი მამაა დასავლური კონსერვატიზმისა, რომელიც მყარ ქრისტიანულ ღირებულებებზე დგას და მტკიცედ სწამს საზოგადოების, რომელიც საკუთარ გამოცდილებაზე დაყრდნობით ცხოვრობს და ყოველთვის მზადაა, ამ გამოცდილების გაცრუების შემთხვევაში ცხოვრების ახალი გზები ფრთხილად და გონივრულად მოძებნოს.

P.S. ამიტომაცაა სოციალიზმი და სოციალისტური რევოლუცია იდიოტობა. კაცმა არ იცის, ადამიანი, რომელსაც "უკლასო" საზოგადოებაში ჩააგდებ, რას იზამს. კი, ეს რეალობა, სადაც ვცხოვრობთ, იდეალური არაა, მაგრამ გაქვს მოცემულობა, რომლის ამოხსნაც შეგიძლია. თუკი ამ მოცემულობას წაშლი, არაფერი დაგრჩება, რითიც შეძლებ, იხელმძღვანელო.

[Arno Mosikyan · Rating 3 out of 5]

QUOTES

I must be tolerably sure, before I venture publicly to congratulate men upon a blessing, that they have really received one. Flattery corrupts both the receiver and the giver; and adulation is not of more service to the people than to kings. I should therefore suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France, until I was informed how it had been combined with government; with public force; with the discipline and obedience of armies; with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue; with morality and religion; with the solidity of property; with peace and order; with civil and social manners.

Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security.

A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.

Kings will be tyrants from policy when subjects are rebels from principle.

We know, and what is better we feel inwardly, that religion is the basis of civil society, and the source of all good and of all comfort.

Violently condemning neither the Greek nor the Armenian, nor, since heats are subsided, the Roman system of religion, we prefer the Protestant; not because we think it has less of the Christian religion in it, but because, in our judgment, it has more. We are protestants, not from indifference but from zeal.

We know, and it is our pride to know, that man is by his constitution a religious animal;

But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.

[Jackson Decker · Rating 3 out of 5]

This will have to go down as the worst and most inaccurate depiction of democracy in history. Throughout reading, I couldn’t ignore the irony that this was published three years after the ratification of the constitution, and a decade before the “Revolution of 1800.” Almost every “prediction” of the outcome of a revolution towards democracy were inaccurate. He believed that violent revolution would be systemic in a democracy, which of course has been true in some cases but looking at the model of democracy(The United States) proves that it is possible to sustain a system of government which peacefully transfers powers between hands while retaining its institutions. He had some good points about why conservation of ideals and tradition is important to avoid anarchy, but otherwise he was truly misguided.

[Michal Paszkiewicz · Rating 3 out of 5]

An account of the horrors of revolution and why the British government serves the people better

[RedGrayBlue · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many parallels throughout history.

[Alex Whigham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Was hard to follow sometimes. But when I could follow it could be quite profound and poetic in the way the author expressed his sentiments.

[Olof · Rating 5 out of 5]

Edmund Burke was a superb statesman as well as an excellent orator, and his writings are, if not timeless, then at least highly memorable, and worth reading, in this day and age.

[SB · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5/3

[E.so · Rating 3 out of 5]

His prose is a bit too wordy for what he essentially wants to say: "peace, constitution, tried and true government good; revolution, the unknown, taking away generational wealth bad."

[Aziff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was pretty unconvinced during the first half of The Evils of Revolution. Like the Englishman he is, E. Burke argues like a royalist and defends the legitimacy of the monarch, while condemning the French, who have just recently undergone a revolution and overthrown their monarch. He argues for a constitutional monarch by which the spirit of the law and nation is channeled via the King.

In a modern democracy, this idea would be silly to suggest. And even in my annotations, I note that E. Burke conveniently closes an eye to the abuse of state wealth and the possibility of the relevance of a monarch to a society that doesn't need it. To the modern individual, there is a strong resistance to this idea.

But it is only in his second half is where he truly shows his brilliance in argumentation. That the structures of democracy and a constitution is established and negotiated through time, as opposed to violent upheavals. The existing system functions as a check and balance, and though not readily liked by many, it is stable and it works.

E. Burke's arguments are those that only an apologist could adopt. But unlike many other rhetoric I've heard on the point of protecting an antiquated monarchy, E. Burke's arguments have been most convincing. Just remember to stick to the second half of the book.

[mari · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Sam Snideman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Burke is solid reading, even for people who do not, or would not, consider themselves to be particularly conservative. This is a super-quick read, and raises the most salient points about liberty, governance, and revolution from Burke's larger "Reflections".

[Joel · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't even realize this was just an abridged version of a larger text (Reflections on the Revolution in France) until I started reading it. Apparently I should have known about this famous work. Whatever.

[Deborah Carroll · Rating 3 out of 5]

Provocative, thoughtful. I marked a lot of pages--agreed with some, disagreed with others--and found on pg 67 a tried and true summation of living with humanity.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the best of Burke that i have read and it takes a time to get use to the C18th wordiness (I can talk). Still there's enough in here to make it worthwhile.