Freedom for an individual is to have the will to act in accordance with what his intelligence leads him to recognise as being most useful to him. On seeing, or remembering, an object man feels a desire, that is to say, a sentiment associated with the memory of a pleasure given to him by that object, and he wants to savour that pleasure again and act in ways that can recapture that pleasure for him. These acts of will, when you analyse them, are nothing more than the feelings associated with remembering that those actions have [always] recaptured the remembered pleasure, and that any other feelings we remember, if we remember them clearly enough, had a similarly successful outcome. So far I see a being whom we can call active, but for whom freedom does not yet exist. But if, on seeing that same object, if by remembering less intensely the feelings from which an action is willed, he can stop wanting to take the action needed to attain the desired objective, if therefore he can stop wishing to attain that objective, then he is free. But he only has this ability because he is somehow motivated not to exert his will; either because of another desire or a sentiment of fear. Every being is free who is able to have two contradictory sentiments relating to the same action, and who can decide either to wish, or not wish, to take that action in complete awareness that his will is conforming to one of the two sentiments. He is free when experiencing the two sentiments and is conscious of doing so. The more the two sentiments are in play when he acts, and the more sharply aware of them he is, the more his freedom is complete. Freedom ceases when there is just one desire to which the will succumbs automatically. Freedom is more keenly felt than that, and has more intensity than a single desire. However, the will can be suspended precisely through fear of succumbing to that single impulse, of not being able to reflect on contradictory impulses.

From the word revolution we have formed the word revolutionary; and this word denotes, in general terms, everything to do with a revolution.

But the word has been made specifically for our revolution; for a revolution which, having occurred in one of those countries which has suffered longer than others under despotic rule, has created within a few years the only republic where freedom has ever been based on the complete equality of rights. Thus, the word revolutionary applies only to those revolutions whose purpose is freedom.

You can say that a man is a revolutionary, that is to say, that he is committed to the principles of the revolution, that he acts for it, that he is prepared to sacrii ce his life to support it.

A revolutionary spirit is a spirit capable of initiating and directing a revolution declared in the name of freedom.

A revolutionary law is a law intended to sustain the revolution and accelerate or manage its progress.

A revolutionary measure is a measure which can ensure the success of the revolution.

So what this all means is that these laws, these measures, are not among those suited to a peaceful society; their characteristic feature is that they are only appropriate in times of revolution, but useless and unjust in other times.

Despotism comes from the Greek word δεσπóτηξ, meaning master. There is despotism whenever men have masters, that is to say, whenever they are subjected to the arbitrary will of others.

The despotism of one man exists only in the imagination, but the despotism of the few over the many is very common, and has two causes: the ease with which a small number of men can unite; and their wealth, which enables them to buy other forms of power.

If you look at the history of countries where you think you have found [an example of] a one-man despotism, you will always see a class of people or a number of small groups sharing power with him. In Turkey, the janissaries and the tribe of lawyers; in Rome, the praetorian guard and a dozen frontier armies; in France, a dozen parlements; in Prussia, the army; in Russia, regiments of guards and the nobility.

There are two types of despotism which we might call de jure and de jure (if the word jure [right] can be associated with the word despotism) but which I shall call direct despotism and indirect despotism. Direct despotism occurs in every country where the people’s representatives do not enjoy the full right of veto and they do not have enough power to reform laws they i nd contrary to reason and justice. Indirect despotism occurs when, in spite of the requirements of the law, representation is neither equal nor real, or when people are compelled to submit to an authority with no basis in law.