only those revolutions that have been deliberately thought out in advance can possibly prove successful.
We may unhesitatingly concede that revolutionaries do not invariably possess the requisite quotum of patience. But here they do not stand alone, for men are unduly prone to appeal to force. This is manifest in the case of war, which, like revolution, may be justified as a defensive measure, but is far too often used as a means for imposing constraint on others. Speaking generally, men are still apt to squander their vital energies, and they continually sustain the realm of death. Thou shalt not kill! The commandment is universally valid, and its significance is that the reflective man must do his utmost to husband his own and his neighbours' vital forces.
From this outlook, it must be admitted that the state institutions and the administrative methods that have hitherto prevailed are characterised by grave moral defects, and that for this reason even a blood-stained revolution may be excusable. As long as the state and its "god-given" monarchy bases its power on the army, whose force is turned not only against enemies abroad but against subjects at home, and as long as the death penalty is enforced, it is natural that many malcontents should have recourse to the violent means whose use seems sanctioned by the state. Tumults and risings are often manifestations of an unreflective dissatisfaction. If the conduct of state affairs be equally unreflective, such manifestations of dissatisfaction tend to become endemic, until ultimately reforms are conceived and effected. Oxenstierna was right when he contended that every government has the revolutions it deserves. Theocratic absolutism, using force, is responsible for the use of violence by the revolutionary opposition.
A correct judgment of any particular revolution will be facilitated by insight into the nature of the social organism, and above all by an understanding of the social harmony of the various forces at work. The cultured sociologist and philosopher of history will take a very different view from the ordinary taxpayer as to the question of blame for revolution in any given state of society. To give a concrete instance, such a philosopher may wonder whether de Maistre did not do more to promote reaction than was done by Louis XVIII, Charles X, or Louis Philippe. The philosopher of history,
