Re: Bourgeois Revolutions

[James Lawler <jlawler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 29 May 1996, Adam Rose wrote:

>
> Zeynep writes: > > > > In Europe, the nation and the bourgeois state was
formed in a totally > > dissimilar manner than the way it was later formed
Latin America, Africa, > > Middle East. There, there was first a political
entity, which went on to > > shape to country in a capitalist manner. The
base/superstructure interaction > > is rather different than classic
Marxist analysis puts things. The relation > > is superdetermined by the
word-historical stage of imperialism. > > > > This isn't actually true
even of Europe. > > The "classic" bourgeois revolutions, the ones that
everyone thinks about > when the term "bourgeois revolution" is used, are
first the French > revolution of 1789 and perhaps second the English
Revolution of the 1640's. > [ Perhaps competing for second place is the
American revolution - sorry > for my Eurocentrism ! ] > > Some bourgeois
revolutions did conform to this model of "bourgeois revolution > from
below". But others clearly did not - archtypally, the German and Japanese
> transformations from pre capitalist to capitalist societies. [ But also
> the decisive "glorious revolution" of 1688 in England, which was the
revolution > which actually decided things in England ]. > > These were
revolutions, in the sense that the social relations in these societies >
were transformed completely. But they were carried through from above, by
sections > of the old ruling class, who realised they were in no position
to compete with > those countries which had already successfully carried
through their bourgeois > revolutions by whatever method. > > The absolute
monarchies of the old Empires - Russia, Austria, Ottoman, - embarked > on
this strategy, but couldn't carry it through, because the old ruling
classes > were too entrenched and/or they started to late, and/or they
were more succesful > as absolutist Empires.

And because they didn't have the history of relatively independent and highly
developed commercial activity and a relatively developed bourgeois class in
"Asiatic" economies such as Russia and the Ottoman empire.  Germany and
Japan, by contrast, had long histories of commerce that was unregulated
by the state, because of the weakness of the state in societies ruled by
highly fragmented feudal elites.  But these relatively successful
boureoisies were ideologically subserviant to the feudal class.

**>
> As for Marxist categories being able to understand this sort of thing, I think
> distinguishing between bourgeois revolutions from above and bourgeois 
> revolutions
> from below, combined with Trostky's theory of combined and uneven development,
> just about covers it.
>
> Adam.
>
>
>
> Adam Rose
> SWP
> Manchester
> UK
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>

NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS:
jlawler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  or
jlawler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---