Alexis de Tocqueville is, of course, the most perceptive observer of American democracy ever to grace our shores, his Democracy in America one of the most important books ever written about democracy in general and the American Republic in specific. Here, in a less read work, he takes on the origins of the French Revolution and the peculiar French form of democracy it brought and proves an equally keen observer of his own country and countrymen.

De Tocqueville makes several vital points about the French Revolution: first, that it built gradually and, given circumstances in France, was inevitable; second, where the American Revolution had as its lodestar the ideal of freedom, the French Revolution was motivated by a passionate hatred of inequality; third, the demise of all insitutions other than the monarchy in France made it certain that when Revolution came, it would be violent and unchecked; finally, this combination of factors lead to the bizarre nature of the French Revolution, with no developed institutions to turn to once the King was gone and with no great emphasis placed on freedom, the French people were willing to tolerate the nihilism of the Terror and the authoritarianism of the governments that replaced the monarchy. He does not make the case, but it lies before us, that the American Revolution was fundamentally a positive action, a demand for greater freedom, but the French Revolution was a negative action, a demand that the few not own more than the many.

This book was to be followed by a second volume dealing with the the Revolution itself, but he died before he could continue the work. That is a shame; it would have been interesting to have some more insight from him into the French, it seems unlikely that anyone has ever rendered a better description of his people than the one he offers in his Conclusion:

When I observe France from this angle [their temperament] I find the nation itself far more remarkable than any of the events in its long history. It hardly seems possible that there can ever have existed any other people so full of contrasts and so extreme in all their doings, so much guided by their emotions and so little by fixed principles, always behaving better, or worse, than one expected of them....Undisciplined by temperament, the Frenchman is always readier to put up with arbitrary rule, however harsh, of an autocrat than with a free, well-ordered government by his fellow citizens, however worthy of respect they be. At one moment he is up in arms against authority and the next we find him serving the powers that be with a zeal such as the most servile races never display.

In the context of this paragraph, we can begin to understand Vichy France and the bureaucratic tyranny of the modern French nation. I say "begin"...

GRADE: B+

Tocqueville has always been, and probably always will be, known as the author of "Democracy in America," a wide-ranging and perspicacious study of the early republic. However, it's when he writes about his own France, and its political system that he knows so intimately, that Tocqueville is at his best. Unlike "Democracy," "The Ancient Regime" is neither sprawling, judgemental, nor inaccurate. These are excusable lapses, of course, in a grand work of poignant analysis, but such deficiencies do not mar "The Ancient Regime." This book is succinct, beautifully written, expertly researched, and incredibly original. Because Tocqueville was French and worked in the French government, this work is much more focused, specific, and accurate than "Democracy" (written hastily after a 9-month tour of America in 1830-31). It is simply a brilliant work, the creation of a curious and sometimes eccentric mind.

The late Francois Furet informs us that this book is not a history of Communism, "it is a history of the illusion of Communism during the time in which the USSR lent it consistency and vitality." (x) The first third of the book first looks at the revolutionary passion and the First World War which made Bolshevism possible, then at the intellectual reaction to the revolution before 1933. The second half of the book deals with how Communism managed to obtain a powerful hegemony in the European Mind by taking the banner of anti-fascism. This was most undeserved, since the two ideologies, though genealogically distinct, were morally similar, and at times were even allies. But after Hitler's death, "During this period, Communism no longer had any open enemies in the West; they were hiding or were silent." (384)

This book has a number of flaws. It is very repetitive and it suffers from incompetent proofreaders. Bela Kun's Communist rebellion is placed in 1910, not 1919 (223). Victor Serge dies in 1974 instead of 1947 (514n14). John Lewis Gaddis' surname is turned into "Gassis," (548n6) while the dates of an essay by Mona Ozouf are moved a century ahead (552n43). Meanwhile interwar Yugoslovia and Romania are wrongly described as republics (58). More importantly, Furet makes sweeping statements about the intellectual climate of Europe based on little or no primary evidence. Statements such as "The Soviet Union was above suspicion" in 1945 (391), that in the sixties "the prohibition on anti-Communism at this time was as strict as ever," (493) and that on the eve of 1989 "anti-Communism was more generally condemned than during the heyday of victorious anti-Fascism" (497) are constantly reiterated. They are not sourced, they are not clearly argued, while the intelligentsia who support them are not clearly delineated, which is not surprising since all three statements are untrue. If they were true the French Communist Party would not have been completely excluded from power from 1947 to 1981. Nor would Communist parties in the rest of the NATO countries by all excluded from power and be, for the most part, marginal, despised and sometimes illegal entities.

Furet also does not deal with opposing arguments. He comments (166) that "There is nothing more incompatible with a Marxist-type explanation...than the unparalleled dicatorships of the twentieth century." Perhaps, but Furet does not discuss such authors as Trotsky, Carr, Deutscher, Neumann, Bauer, let alone the large neo-marxist scholarship of the present day who have sought to provide one. He uses Hermann Rauschning's memoirs to show Nazi sympathy for aspects of Communism (191-92), but Hitler's latest and most thorough biographer states that Rauschning's memoirs are very unreliable. Whether on the Spanish Civil War or the Nazi-Soviet Pact Furet ignores or is unaware of such scholars as Helen Graham, Geoffrey Roberts or Michael J. Carley.

When it suits his purposes he quotes socialist rhetoric by fascists and extreme right-wingers (163-67, 304-09). When it does not he ignores Francoist rhetoric about its fascist and totalitarian character to argue that it is safely "reactionary." (259-60) Nazism is called "anti-bourgeois," apparently for no other reason because of its constant calls for meritocracy (which one would think was a classic trope of bourgeois politics). He quotes David Schoenbaum's argument that Nazism led to a social revolution, but Ian Kershaw notes that this argument has been severly qualified by more recent research. Much is made of the complicity of intellectuals, but the acts of the Italian elites who voluntarily brought Mussolini to power are absolved "as the product of ignorance and incompetenece rather than of complicity." (176)

Fundamentally this is book that tells little about why Communism developed the way it did, or why so many French citizens supported it for so long. Ultimately it is the story of the heroic intellectual who rejected his Communist path and saw the light. Rather than read this self-serving account, scholars of Nazism and Stalinism should read authors such as Christopher Browning, Omer Bartov, Sarah Gordon, Terry Martin and Yuri Slezkine.

Marx's experience in London....The latter part of the 19th Century in England was one of oppression and exploitation of the worker, many of which were children. Conditions were deplorable. Abuses rampant. Marx's response to this and his theoretical solution originated and evolved during this period in London. After this period ended due to public outrage, legislation and union movements, Marxist ideology was not modified by its' followers, but reinforced, with it's (outdated) concepts. After digressing from implementing (the doing of) Marx's major points they erroneously continued to advocate the motto and principles (the theory) of Marx's original critique.

This book by the Furets is not about communism's policies, practices, and affect on certain societies. It's about its' idea, ideology, and vision. This makes it compelling. Because in the future there may be some who claim that communism wasn't "interpreted," or "implemented" correctly. Hence, they may advocate a "new" or "more effective" form or version of communism again in the future. This book takes a look not only at the the origins, interpretations, and implementations of Marxist ideology, but the disastrous ramifications of it. In actuality, Marxism was and still is nothing but heuristic value, becoming as passé as Freud by 1900. Marxism, in its true form, has never existed beyond the political theory in the books of Marx and Engels. Over 100 million people died as the result of this vision, which was never brought to fruition. No one can honestly argue against historical fact that today in 2003, that the altered and diluted form of communism that was implemented imploded, self-destructing from within.

Two Main Communistic Ideas That Never Came Into Existence

1. Marx: "the state will whither away" = State Communism

Did the state dissolve because there was no need for it, as Marx theorized? He wrote that the "state would whither away," because there would be no need for it to exist. But in the Soviet Union, the state was the most ever-present, omnipotent, and omniscient facet of Soviet life. The Soviet government was a monopolistic corporation: controlling, owning, producing, surveying, imprisoning, legislating, decreeing, and supplying, everything. Some claim this was the "Soviet Interpretation." This is impossible because one cannot interpret what was never stated nor implied.

2. Was the communist party representative of the proletariat or the average person?

Membership of the communist party was a very small portion of the population. Those who rose to Apparatchick status had special privilege and practiced and received favoritism in many areas of life. This small group of elites dictated to everyone else what to read, listen to, think, study, and say. Consequences were severe. In addition, most communist nations were rampant with venal bureaucrats, corruption, internecine politics, self-interest, censorship, secret police, and control of the media. Citizens were not allowed to travel. Is this a society based upon equality? Of the proletarian, or "working man?"

Were there various interpretations or Marxist ideology?

The basic principles proposed by Marx (and Engels) were never applied in any of the communistic societies of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, or Cambodia. This makes it as a working, applicable ideology, even less credible. Marxism was never implemented in the real-world. It was an empty dish of critiques that was later filled with food of alien ideas. There is no documentation that Marxism has ever been practiced or has ever existed in recent world history (save agricultural communes).

Marx's critiques of capitalism were critiques and critiques only, offering only limited and vague general theoretical alternatives. These blanks would later be filled in by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Le Duan and Tito among others. Only a few of Marx's tenets, were practiced by communist nations (i.e., atheism, agricultural collectivization).

After the fall of communism, these nations have the audacity to ask for financial aid and business know-how from the United States in particular and and Western Europe and market-economy-based nations in Asia. What strong ideals these people have....

The history of ideas teaches us not only about the particular idea being discussed, but also how our minds and emotions are put together at a basic level. Furet shows us the mechanisms by which humanity kept the idea of Communism alive even in the face of such facts as totalitarianism and raw terror. His conclusion is that we need a hopeful political idea, and capitalism just isn't sexy enough to ticle our fantasies. What idea will fill the role that Communism has played until its recent collapse? My guess is that the anarchists who show up at the international monetary meetings are the dreamers who have filled the gap that the Communists left behind. Unfortunately, just because an idea isn't sexy enough doesn't mean that it isn't the best, least terror-filled way.

Although called a "Critical Dictionary", this book does a remarkable job of describing the intellectual attributes of the French Revolution and comparing it with the ideals of the American Revolution. The author adroitly traces the origins of the French Revolution to the Enlightenment legacy and the age of reason. The well-organized chapters elucidate the principle participants, including Robes Pierre, who helped stabilize the Revolution. In fact, this book explains that the Revolution attacked inequality. Consequently, the peasants revolted and the bourgeoisie seized political control. Additionally, the philosophical anecdotes of Hegel and Marx enriched my reading enjoyment. Moreover, the chapter about the American Revolution clarified the uniqueness of the French Revolution in its own conceptual framework. Overall, A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution represents essential reading for a student or general reader interested in the French Revolution.

This book is made up of correspondence between the French historian Francois Furet (best known for "The Passing of an Illusion") and German historian Ernst Nolte (best known for "Three Faces of Fascism" and more controversial later writings such as "The European Civil War"). The correspondence takes the form of a stimulating, respectful debate, sparked by Furet's footnote on Nolte's interpretation of fascism in "The Passing of an Illusion."
Furet takes the position that fascism and communism are parallel movements with common roots. Nolte takes the view that fascism was a reaction to communism. The two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, however, and there is much agreement between the two. Tzvetan Todorov, in the preface, finds Furet's arguments more convincing. This reviewer, however, was more impressed by Nolte.
The books main shortcoming (and the reason I'm giving it four stars instead of five) is it's length. At only Ninety-one pages, excluding the preface and forward, it might leave the reader unsatiated, wanting more.
But if you prefer quality over quantity, and don't mind a high price/page ratio, you will not be disappointed. Ninety-one pages of Furet and Nolte is worth a lot more than a thousand pages of David Halberstam drivel.