When one compares the French and the Russian revolutions, a number of important parallels become clear. In terms of religion, citizenship, and the role of women and the family, the Russian Revolution at its height (October 1917) was more radical than the French Revolution during its peak (August 1792-1794 death of Robespierre). Both countries saw a great deal of change during these respective revolutionary periods, but Russia far exceeded France in terms of its willingness to enact broad and sweeping changes that were unlike anything that had been seen in Europe. Although one can argue that if one were to compare, the revolution in Russia was the most radical in its revolution and subsequent aftermath, the experiment fell flat in the end due to lack of funding and organization. In the end, France can be seen as radical simply because of its staying power, yet one cannot ignore the fact that the measures enacted in Russia were far more revolutionary and new to the history of Europe and the world.

During the Russian Revolution, women’s rights were of far greater concern to the Bolsheviks than to those in France during the French Revolution. In addition to being a large part of the revolutionary literature and a strong working force, the most revolutionary aspect of women and their families came in 1918 just after the revolution of 1917. At this point the Bolsheviks, after only a year in power, submitted the New Family Code which gave women and families protections not seen anywhere on the globe at the time, let alone in France during its revolution. The New Family Code encompassed everything from marriage, alimony, divorce, abortion, land rights and most importantly, stated that women’s civil status was equal to that of men. When one considers that in France before the Revolution, citizenship and larger benefits associated with it were given to men because they were capable of military service, this is seen as all the more revolutionary on the part of Russia. This highly revolutionary declaration by the Bolsheviks could be, in part at least, to the fact that women were not only the economic backbone to the expanding industrial economy (since by 1918 %60 of factory workers were female) but women were also important to raising the population numbers after the devastation after the Great War. Women were active in the 1905 Bread Riots and as the revolutions in Russia grew more numerous and heated, their role only increased. It is also important to note that Russian women were part of the literature of revolution.

Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels had strong views regarding the position of women and saw that it was a waste that they were tied to domestic chores and housework. They believed that women, as wage earners, should be able to find independence from their husbands but it was argued by Engels and Marx that capitalism was not the best way to achieve this and argued that only through socialism could they find the type of balance most suited to them. Even though these measures by the Bolsheviks were far more revolutionary than any passed in France during its revolution ending in 1794, the fact remains that is was something of a failed experiment. The grand vision of a perfect world for women was overshadowed by a general lack of follow-through and many projects to support and continue the program were under-funded and fell flat. Still, however, Russia was the first to grant such far-reaching rights to women and families and this aspect of their revolution, perhaps more so than others, makes the Russian Revolution of 1917 (and its immediate aftermath) far more revolutionary than France’s.

Overall, in terms of scope and breadth of revolutionary legislation, Russia was more radical than France in terms of citizenship. One of the reasons why this is so radical must be seen outside of the American notion of democracy and rather seen as simply a great change (without bias). This is because before the revolution in October 1917, basic privileges of citizenship were completely uneven. One nobleman’s vote would count for up to 50 times what a peasant’s vote would and even though Russia’s strength still relied on the agricultural and industrial proletariat, they were almost completely excluded from affairs of state. In the Russia before the Bolsheviks, the nobility literally ruled everything in terms of citizenship and affairs of state and thus such a great broad and sweeping change such as the one that took place was entirely radical—especially since it toppled just about everything the country was based upon for the entirety of its history. While France also made some changes, the fact remains that they were still firmly rooted in the age-old patriarchal concerns of military and men. In order to be a citizen, young men had to participate in the military for a regulated term and although this granted the right to have more of a say in their government, this was only theory. In fact, the new French regime during and after the revolutions in France did not succeed in enacting sweeping change. Much of lawmaking and other acts associated with citizenship was still left in the hands of the nobility, thus they were hardly as successful or broad as the Bolsheviks. Still one particularly admirable aspect of the post-Revolutionary France that was present was that being a French citizen did not extend to your language, ethnic, or regional heritage, which in itself was very radical. Still though, the timeworn acts of money buying freedom (such as being able to buy your citizenship in the National Guard) only continued old patterns.

Like Russia, in France before the Revolution, there was belief that the changes should be made country-wide, however Russia was far les concerned with the issues of local distinction than France was and they were able to avoid petty local government squabbles and instead concentrate on bring the working poor to the top. Instead of a select group of nobility holding the power in Russia, the toilers, the peasants, and even women were able to enjoy larger protections and benefits are more bona fide members of the state. There is one problem that should be pointed out with this set-up in Russia. While this paper still contends that they were more radical in the scope of changes brought about, it must be noted that they did not strive to create a completely equal state. The former bourgeoisie and even to some extent peasants (since they owned some land) were not given as many rights as the proletariat and the nobility, clergy, and other people that were non-proletariat were excluded from citizenship. Again, it is difficult to think of this without judging in terms of American democracy but it is still fair to state that despite their exclusion of some elements of society, the Russians were far more radical in revolutionary action than the French.

Russia was more radical in terms of religion during its Revolution in 1917 than the French were years before but this is a rather close call, simply because religion was a more important affair of state in western Europe than it was in the East (although this is likely arguable) either during the 1700s or the 1900s. Like as in the case of the basis of many other world revolutions throughout history, it should be noted that the Russians even eliminated the clergy from the rights of citizenship and associated them with corruption and wealth. Overall, the goal in France was to eliminate the Catholic Church and they eventually went through three stages involving; control, suppression, and reconciliation. Most un-radical of their efforts was to force priest to take an oath to support the revolution and subsequently, many priest became part of the counter-revolution. In their attempt to turn to a statewide “rational religion” they attempted to eliminate traces of religion by changing the calendar, changing the inscription on tombstones to reflect a more “rational” approach to death, among other aspects. Robespierre even created his own Church of the Supreme, which seems more like an attempt for him to gain even more control than to explore religious principles. It almost seems as though the French tried to eliminate all traces of religion in such a hurry that the process was doomed to failure. Russia was more balanced in its approach to eradicating religion which was seen (according to Marx) as the “opiate of the masses” and the Bolsheviks reacted against more what religion stood for (cultural backwardness for example) than its very existence. The church was associated with corruption, therefore the Russians sought to root that out and that was part of the revolutionary process of eradication aside form just seeing it as not rational. Instead of attacking the churches directly, the Bolsheviks took a more balanced approach and realized that if they were harsh against the religious then they might be setting themselves up for a great “back-firing” later on from zealots. Instead, they tried to eradicate it through its institutions, the bourgeoisie being one of them. In sum, the Russian revolution in terms of religion was more radical because it sought to go underneath the power structure itself and work against the institutions of religious power and corruption. In France, the efforts to control religion only limited rights and caused a great deal of chaos and anger.

In closing, one must admit that the French and their revolution was better in terms of follow-through. The Bolsheviks had a number of large-scale plans and actions that died out by the 1930s and left the country broken. The French and their ideas of the republic and the new rights that were emerging from the revolution stayed and were not quickly replaced by something new. TheEnlightenment ideals that spawned the revolution have remained and even impact the world today, especially in terms of individual rights. While they ignored women for the most part, the French were more radical in terms of long-lasting ideological reformation of their country. While Russia went strong in the few years following the Bolshevik takeover, these changes were perhaps too quickly instituted and without the solid foundations necessary for truly effective, long-lasting change.

Other essays and articles in the History Archives related to this topic include :   War and the Downfall of the Monarchies in France and Russia   •  The Historical and Societal Functions of World Revolutions  •   A Comparison of the French Revolution and American Revolution   •    France’s Pre-revolutionary Financial Crisis: The Lead-up to the French Revolution    •  Summary and Analysis of Das Kapital by Karl Marx