Showing posts with label French Revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label French Revolution. Show all posts

27 September 2011

FICTION / Marc Estrin : The Machine



THE MACHINE

By Marc Estrin / The Rag Blog / September 27, 2011

The government murder of Troy Davis this week -- under odd evidential circumstances -- has once again thrust capital punishment up for public discussion.

As my contribution to death penalty abolition, I recently wrote The Good Doctor Guillotin, a novel about the first use of the guillotine during the French Revolution -- an occasion sufficiently removed from current politics as to allow the issues to be seen more clearly.

Tobias Schmidt was the machine's builder, a piano maker. And Charles-Henri Sanson was the executioner of Paris.

The novel itself is intricately woven, but here's a stand-alone short chapter describing the testing of the machine before use. It may provide some food for reflection:


29. The Machine

It was 14 feet high, its beams and posts painted blood-red -- a nice touch, that. It would be called “End of the Soup,” “Old Growler,” “Sky Mother,” “the Last Mouthful.” It would be called by the feminine form of someone’s name, someone who had repudiated it. As if it were his daughter. Assemblymen called it the "Timbers of Justice.”

The victim, once attached to the plank, his head in the fatal window, would become a part of it, a cog in the machine of egalitarian justice. His blood would be shed not by the unsteady hand of his fellow man but by this lifeless, insensible, infallible instrument, a doctor’s idea become oak and iron.

The materials gathered, over the course of a week Tobias Schmidt and two hired workers constructed the frame. Two four-sided posts were grooved and chiseled as guides for the falling blade. When the 70-pound holder and 15-pound blade came back from the blacksmith, they were fitted loosely between the posts and the posts joined by an upper crossbar with a hole for the rope. A lower crossbar was angle-braced to its stand for stability. Rope guides were placed.

On the back side of the device, the executioner’s side, another crossbar was attached to hold the lunette -- two wooden pieces, each with a half-circular hole to contain the client’s, the patient’s, the package’s neck. The diameter was that of Pelletier’s. A smaller one for women could be substituted as needed. When fitted together, the pieces formed a lovely “little moon” whose upper half could be lifted on a hinge to permit a head to enter.

That was it. Simple. A weighted blade and its frame. Though it required two strong men to carry it, it could be loaded onto a heavy cart and transported wherever it was needed, along with its separate bench, long and strong enough to hold a giant—or an ox—and fitted with thick leather straps.


Before dawn on Tuesday, April 15, 1792, a sound of clattering wheels was heard on southern streets two miles from the center of Paris. It was a four-wheeled wagon, drawn by two horses, carrying a long object covered with heavy black cloth and tightly bound with chains. Four guardsmen with bare swords on horseback rode silently in front of the wagon, and four behind. Bringing up the rear was a smaller wagon with several sheep. If going to market, they were being taken in the wrong direction. They advanced slowly, gray and black in the pale early morning.

The procession was heading for the suburb of Bicêtre, just outside the city gate, home to the great hospital for venereal disease, its hospice for the needy poor, and its maison de correction, locked wards for hardened criminals, some awaiting execution.

When seen from a distance, Louis XIII’s building looks quite imposing. Set on the brow of a hill, from afar it retained something of its former splendor and the look of a royal residence. But now, three Louises later, the palace had in fact become a hovel. Its dilapidated eaves were shameful and its walls diseased. Not a window was glazed but only fitted with crisscrossed iron bars through which, here and there, pressed the harrowed face of a patient or a prisoner.

Already waiting in a small inner courtyard were Charles-Henri Sanson, with two assistants, Tobias Schmidt, and the doctors Antoine Louis and Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, the latter most reluctantly.

Early-morning eyes gawked from behind bars as the first sheep’s head was placed in the lunette, its neck the size of Pelletier’s. The upper half moon was locked in place. One of the assistants let loose the rope from its tie-off so Sanson could better observe.

Disaster: The heavy blade jerked stickily into motion, jolted downward between the grooves, and sliced into the animal without killing it. All mental ears were stopped against its terrifying cry. Sanson was dismayed. He had the blade wound back up and released again. It bit into the neck again but did not sever it. The victim howled. Once again the blade was raised and dropped, but the third stroke only caused a stream of blood to spurt from the sheep’s neck, without the head falling.

Five times the blade rose and fell; five times it cut into the sheep, which cried five times for mercy. It remained standing on the platform, an appalling, terrifying sight. Sanson straddled it and hacked away with a butcher knife at what remained of its neck. Twenty pounds of lead shot were added to the blade-carrier, and three more sheep were neatly dispatched thereby. The march of science.

After nightfall Schmidt took the machine back to his workshop in the Cour du Commerce, Rue St.-André-des-Arts, just opposite the printing shop in Number 8 where Marat’s paper was printed. He lined the grooves with brass for a smoother drop and bolted more weight to the blade assembly.

Two days later, on April 17, assisted by his son and his two brothers, Sanson repeated his experiments on the improved machine, this time with three human cadavers from a military morgue, three well-built men who had died in short illnesses that had not caused them to grow thin.

Among the spectators were the two doctors concerned, along with Michel Cullerier, the chief surgeon of Bicêtre; Philippe Pinel, the resident alienist; several physician members of the National Assembly; and delegates from the Council of Hospitals of Paris. Strapped to the bench, the three corpses, good soldiers all, were successfully beheaded without protesting, to the applause of most of the onlookers.

[Marc Estrin is a writer, activist, and cellist, living in Burlington, Vermont. His novels, Insect Dreams, The Half Life of Gregor Samsa, The Education of Arnold Hitler, Golem Song, The Lamentations of Julius Marantz, and The Good Doctor Guillotin have won critical acclaim. His memoir, Rehearsing With Gods: Photographs and Essays on the Bread & Puppet Theater (with Ron Simon, photographer) won a 2004 theater book of the year award. He is currently working on a novel about the dead Tchaikovsky. Read more articles by Marc Estrin on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

31 August 2009

Storming the Bastille : Bidding Bipartisanship Adieu

"Prise de la Bastille," painting by Jean-Pierre Louis Laurent Houel / Wikimedia Commons.

Health care reform:
To the barricades


By Dr. Stephen R. Keister / The Rag Blog / August 31, 2009

I fear that the average American, including myself, has a very limited knowledge of the events in France between the storming of the Bastille and the final termination of the violence in 1794.

Our conception is of the overthrow of the monarchy and the deaths of Louis XVI and his Queen. We are limited in our knowledge largely by reading, in our youth, The Tale of Two Cities and The Scarlet Pimpernel. Our view was much too narrow.

I recently have been reading Professor Paul R. Harrison's The Jacobin Republic Under Fire and have become aware that the most bitter dispute which endured for four years was between the Girondins who espoused provincial rights and the Montagnards who favored a strong central government. The adherents on both sides were firm in their convictions and showed no pity for those who disagreed, accusing the opposition of being traitors and enemies of the state.

At one point, early in the spring of 1793, one Pierre Verniand, a Girondinist, addressed the delegates of the National Convention warning that the greatest threat to the Republic lay not in foreign enemies, but rather in those who would manipulate the people in their aspirations for dictatorial power, who would not hesitate once again to unleash the assassins of the prior September in pursuit of their ambitions. M. Verniand, an eloquent orator, was espousing bipartisanship and cooperation to the delegates. The long term upshot was M. Verniand ending his life in the Place de la Concorde on the guillotine! So goes bipartisanship...

At a later date another politician wrote:
"The art of leadership consists of consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up this attention...The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category. Tell big lies, and do not qualify or concede a point, no matter how wrong you may be. Do not hesitate or stop for reservations. The masses are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional natures than consciously, and thus fall victims to the big lie rather than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. Vehemence persuades the masses -- the louder the statement the more plausible it seems and passion convinces them. The masses always respond to compelling force... Since they have only a poor acquaintance with abstract ideas their reactions lie more in the domain of the feelings, where the roots of their positive as well as their negative attitudes are implanted."
This is from Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf.

Thus the problem we face today in the United States. The domestic brown shirts, led not by an Ernst Roehm, but by a group of lackeys of the corporate establishment, i.e. Rick Scott, Zach Wamp, Glenn Beck, Betsy McCuughey, Rush Limbaugh and John Goodman, and are among us.

These folks are leading a group of zombies, who are not only opposed to the right of decent health care for all, but by a blind hate for a president who is educated, and of another ethnic background than themselves. The issue of health care merely makes a rallying point for their masters, as does the issue of gun rights, fetal integrity, or gay-marriage.

Compounding the problem is no viable leader for the opposition. President Obama should be the man out front but he is playing Faust to the pharmaceutical and banking industries. Other leadership is lacking, largely because in the psyche of progressives is a distrust and antipathy to figures of authority. We prefer civilized discussion and immediately cringe when a figure appears that might unite us all in a common purpose.

We do not follow the pied piper and that historically has been our strength and our weakness. When an authoritarian government takes over the liberals are first to the wall still arguing about academic minutia. We deride such as Sarah Palin or Joe Wurzelbacher. We do not remember that the German S.S. was led by a chicken farmer. Yet, there are issues, however absurd they may be, to be answered regarding health care.

1. "The bill before the House of Representatives encourages abortion." The House Bills, including HR 676, which the Speaker promises will be debated, have their basis in the long standing drive for single payer/national health care by Physicians for a National Health Program. I have been a member of the group and not once have I seen any reference to abortion in their extensive literature. This abortion issue is pure and simple fraud. As a matter-of-fact the Hyde Amendment forbids any federal funding to be used for abortion; hence, the issue has been settled for a long time.

2. The end of life issues are pure poppy-cock. This reality has been around since civilization developed. The problem was discussed by, among others, Thomas Becket. We are born, we live, we die; that is reality. The culture of The United States has in recent years been averse to facing and discussing the issue of death. Example: in obituaries we do not die, we “pass away,” what ever that means.

However, why the House of Representatives raised this issue I have not the vaguest idea. Any physician should be delighted to sit down with a family and discuss end-of-life issues without being paid by Medicare. Statistics indicate that only 20% of Americans have living wills or medical powers-of-attorney. We are a society that preaches individual; choice, thus it seems reasonable that we should be allowed to be permitted our choice about how to die.

In all states this choice must be written, notarized, or witnessed, and is binding in our final days. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with euthanasia. Another lie, and misrepresentation by the health care opponents, and kept in public view by the idiotic talking heads on TV.

Perhaps the discussion will encourage the intelligent portion of the population to have a living will written to accompany their regular will which at the time of their death indicates disposal of their property. Your physician or attorney can instruct you abouty where to obtain forms to write a living will. In my years of practice of medicine I have seen too many relatives transfixed, and in denial, when the physician says, "Your father is dying. What do you want to do?”

It is unfair to put the onus on the family; this should be decided by the individual, through free choice, before the terminal event. I have witnessed confusion and antagonism created by the death bed decisions when left to the family. The daughter from 2000 miles away, who has not seen her father for 20 years, will be seized by guilt and request "everything be done.” On the other hand there are the heirs, in debt from living over their heads, who might have other opinions! As a matter of fact the "end of life panels" that the opponents of decent health care describe are already here. They are called insurance companies. These beneficent institutions allow at least 18,000 Americans, at a minimum, to die each year for lack of or denied health care.

3. "Obama is a Fascist. Obama is a Socialist." In this country, these are used as derogatory terms, largely by persons who have not the slightest idea of their meaning. Sort of like calling a person, in more acceptable terms, a son-of-a-bitch. Of course Fascist and Socialist are mutually exclusive. By definition a fascist regime is a right wing government, subsidized by the large corporations, and in alliance with the military. Eaxample, Nazi Germany. A socialist government is hard to find; perhaps the nearest thing to it is in the various Scandinavian Nations where public services, including first rate medical care for all, are incorporated into a society where private enterprise is encouraged, but capitalism purely for the profit of the management, at the expense of the worker, is discouraged.

If our right wing friends want to bring up the USSR as an example they are totally ignorant of history. Lenin and Stalin were theoretical communists; however, Lenin died shortly after taking power, and Stalin had Trotsky assassinated. Under Stalin the USSR was an authoritarian dictatorship, a throw-back to the days of the Czars, with the workers relegated to the level of the serfs under the Russian monarchy.

I now hear Republican senators espousing a plan to give the public a choice of 22 insurance plans, "as we now have.” However, the senators never mentions that some 70% of their premiums, or more, are paid by the federal government. Close to being "socialized medicine” for the politicians. Let us stop this hypocrisy. These folks play on the same lack of knowledge as when they aver that the great physicist, Stephen Hawking, who has had Lou Gehrig's Disease for many years, would be dead if he was subject to the poor care of the British health system. This, of course, ignores the fact that Dr. Hawking is British and has done quite well for years under the British health system.

The progressives are just not getting their message out to the general public, and it is surely difficult in view of the fact that the mainstream media is largely subsidized by the drug and insurance industries, and allied with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as the AMA and AARP. One notes that the latter two organizations are for "health care reform" but never indicate favor for a single payer plan or a government option.

Beware! In a CNN article distributed by Common Dreams of, former insurance agency spokesman Wendell Potter tells us how the "Insurance firms drive debate," and Guy Adams writing in The Independent, a British newspaper, tells the "The brutal truth about Americas Health Care."

As Congress returns to Washington in September we liberals must make a decision about how to proceed. We must be realistic in our perceptions of the attitude of the general public and be aware of the anatomy of American ignorance as described by Bill Noxid in Information Clearing House, and urge the health care leadership to moderate their discourse as suggested by Professor George Lakoff in TruthOut.

We must head for the streets and congressional offices. We must realize that President Obama now equivocates on health care, as he has avoided any action in response to the coup in Honduras. He continues a futile war in Afghanistan with lame explanations. He seemingly has deserted the progressive cause.

In the end I agree with Dr. Howard Dean and the 60-plus courageous liberal members of The House of Representatives, that a bad bill that covertly concedes more power to the insurance and pharmaceutical cartels would be worse than none at all. I would urge that the liberals in the House vote against a bill that is a farce and a concession to the corporatocracy that dominates our political parties.

Then, hopefully, we could try again in two years.

[Dr. Stephen R. Keister lives in Erie, PA. He is a retired physician who is active in health care reform.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

19 September 2008

For American Workers : Lessons from the French Revolution

Victory of the "Front Populaire" in 1936. From left to right: Mme. Blum, Léon Blum (SFIO), Maurice Thorez (PCF), Roger Salengro (SFIO, minister of the Interior). In the second row, behind Blum and Thorez, (rolling a cigarette) is Edouard Dalladier (Parti Radical , defense minister).

No history to learn from: American working class consciousness is almost an oxymoron.
By David P. Hamilton
/ The Rag Blog / September 19, 2008

Class-consciousness: a basic some have and some don’t.

The pinnacle triumph of French socialism was triggered when Stalin changed his international policy in 1934. From the Bolshevik Revolution onward, the leadership of the Soviet Union had insisted that all socialist parties follow their model. In France, conflict over this dictate came to a head at a Congress of the Socialist Party in December 1920. The decision was whether to join the Third International by endorsing Lenin’s “Twenty-one Points”, a statement of principles that was “a break with the wartime reformism [and] the adoption of methods similar to those of the Bolshevik Party”.

The result was a classic left sectarian split. The faction that dominated the congress became the French Communist Party. Leon Blum led the minority, which became the French Socialist Party. But strength at the congress did not accurately reflect strength on the ground. The Socialist Party soon proved it could win more votes in parliamentary elections and was stronger among union members. The split became rancorous with Communists commonly referring to Socialists as “social fascists” who didn’t understand “scientific socialism”. The Socialist believed Communists to be unpatriotic sycophants of Moscow.

Then fascism began its march across Europe. First, Mussolini came to power in Italy in 1922 and initially earned widespread positive reviews. Then Hitler took over in Germany in 1933 and Franco initiated his right wing insurrection to overthrow the Spanish Republic in July 1936. It was mainly fear of a resurgent Germany that caused Stalin to change his mind. The new policy for the Third International directed member parties to form anti-fascist popular fronts that united all elements of the left under a common, reformist program, essentially the program of the Socialist Party, plus anti-fascism. The reunification of the socialists into "popular fronts" quickly led socialist led governments in Spain in 1935 and France in 1936, a first for both. For France, a country with a long history of vitriolic anti-Semitism, the Socialist leader, Leon Blum, was also the first Jewish Prime Minister. His ruling coalition was based on the legislative plurality of the combined Socialist and Communist Parties.

Immediately after Blum became prime minister, the country was swept by a huge wave of strikes, 12,000 of them, all in the private sector, 75% of which involved worker occupations of the workspace. Two million workers went out on strike in the middle of a depression regardless of the deep pool of unemployed. For the first time, the strikers knew that the government would not send in the troops.

On Sunday, June 7, 1936, the patronat, essentially the central committee of the capitalist class, met at Blum’s office with officials of the new government, plus Socialist Party, Communist Party and union leaders backed by the majority of the electorate and the strikers. It was not a fair fight. With the government on the side of an insurgent working class, the capitalist leaders felt largely helpless. In one afternoon, French workers won the right to organize unions, mandatory collective bargaining, union representation in the determination of workforce policy, a 15-17% wage increase, and amnesty for strike actions. The government also pledged to move instantly to pass legislation to establish the 40-hour week without loss of pay and two weeks paid annual vacations. Not surprisingly, membership in socialist parties and unions “rose by hundreds of thousands”. The French socialist movement probably won more in one Sunday afternoon as the US labor movement has won throughout its history.

This socialist victory has now been taught for generations by public school teachers, their union being a one of the most stalwartly socialist of French unions. A positive depiction of socialism’s achievements has been standard curriculum for French students since the end of WWII. Because of this general consensus, the great majority of French people are well aware of the benefits they, their parents and their grandparents have all received as a result of the actions of socialist movements; eventually including national healthcare, mass transportation, paid education, public housing, lengthy unemployment compensation, guaranteed pensions, the 35 hour week, a month’s paid vacation and self respect. Hence, the French have a relatively high degree of class-consciousness, an entrenched awareness of the very tangible benefits socialism has brought their society and them personally. Bourgeoisie and proletariat are, indeed, both French words.

In the United States, our basic problem is that this consciousness is negligible among American workers. They have never had their own socialist government. They have the only non-socialist labor movement in the world. Their unions, although weak, remain under continuous and unrelenting assault by the capitalist class, its media minions and government functionaries. Not surprisingly, American unions are today a shadow of their former limited selves, more a relic than a major force in American society. American capitalist hegemony has effectively fought the development of class-consciousness among American workers. That’s a lot to overcome.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.