Re: English Revolution

[Julio Pino <jpino@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Jim F.
Barrington Moore's answer to this apparent riddle is that while
intermarriage between aristocrats and the bourgeoisie was becoming more
common in France by the 17th century, and some proto-capitalists acquired
noble titles, France still maintained a much stronger "parasitic
aristocracy" who lived off rents and saw litle need to invest in
manufacturing. This, of course, would come down to a question of historoans
ebating statistics. But it does help explain why the French bourgeoisie
beheaded not just the king but tens of thousands of aristocrats, and why
the peasants remained loyal to the revolution even under Napoleon.BTW,
Moore also makes this argument vis-a-vis China and Japan.
Revolutionary Cheers
Julio Cesar
>
>...the question remains why France did not follow the English political
>path.
Wasn't it the case that for the first half of the 18th century that
>France seemed
>to be moving in the same direction as England?  The distinctions between
>the aristocracy and bourgeoisie were not entirely clearcut.  For example
>France in the 17th century saw the rise of what were known as the
>'noblesse de la robe' who were bourgeoisie that had achieved nobility
>through bureacratic services to the crown.  At the same time they tended
>to be hostile to the 'noblesse d'epee' who were the older nobility that
>descended from the warrior aristocrats of medieval times.  Internarriage
>between aristocrats and bourgeoisie were not uncommon.  And much
>of the France's economic development during the 18th century was
>bankrolled by aristocrats who invested in the new capitalist enterprises.
>>
>Jim F.
>]
>>
>>

>>
>>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
>Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
>Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
>http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
>