Classic Revolutions

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis Proyect:

> No revolution is really of the "classic" kind, including the bourgeois
> revolution. For all of the use that Marx and Engels made of the French
> Revolution of 1789 as a "classic" one, the bourgeoisie did not really lead
> the revolution, but elements of the aristocracy. So argues George Comnimel,
> a Canadian Marxist of some repute.

Ricardo Duchesne:

It was the historian Alfred Cobban who first provided some
substantive data seemingly showing that the French Revolution was not
"bourgeois" in its origins; such a designation, he said, was nothing
more than a "myth". He noted that the commercial and
industrial bourgeoisie were not the leaders of the Third Estate.
Rather, they
were mainly lawyers, doctors, even aristocrats. Other historians like
G.V. Taylor and Eisenstein added that it was not "bourgeois" because
1) the French economy was not capitalist before 1789, and 2) the
bourgeoisie were actually seeking and obtaining noble status and, in
common with the nobility, holding "proprietary wealth" (land, venal
offices). Many nobles were engaged in trade, industry, and
finance; thus resulting in a convergence (not contradiction) of
economic interests between these two classes.

In light of these facts, marxists like Comninel concluded that it was
not bourgeois. Elsewhere I criticized Comninel and the
revisionists (S&S, vol 54, no3). Although I no longer agree with
many aspects of this paper (which was actually based on my MA thesis
I wrote for the late George Rude), I think we can still hold that
this revolution was bourgeois not only in its consequences (as Devine
says) but its origins.

First, there is no reason why we should not view the lawyers and
doctors as "bourgeois", since these were highly
educated professionals in tune with the intellectual and cultural
movement of the Enlightenment. They were members of a professional,
urbane class. Secondly, those aristocratic individuals who played a
prominent role in the early phase of the revolution  were
thoroughly "embourgeoisified" in terms of their sources of income and
their ideas. Thirdly, even if nobles and bourgeois were
mixed in terms of their property holdings, they did not share a
single form of property, but two forms - merchant's capital and
aristocratic property - each property based on a different set of
social relations and juridical principles...

What is missing in the marxist analysis is an appreciation of the
Enlightenment in its own right, in a way not
reducible to the economic interests of the bourgeoisie.

ricardo








Return-Path: <RDUCHESN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Ricardo Duchesne" <RDUCHESN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization:  UNB Saint John
To: lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx, owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:          Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:57:19 -0400
Subject:       Re: "Classic" revolutions

> Date sent:      Thu, 09 Oct 1997 15:01:07 -0400
> Send reply to:  lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> From:           Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:             pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Louis Project:

> No revolution is really of the "classic" kind, including the bourgeois
> revolution. For all of the use that Marx and Engels made of the French
> Revolution of 1789 as a "classic" one, the bourgeoisie did not really lead
> the revolution, but elements of the aristocracy. So argues George Comnimel,
> a Canadian Marxist of some repute.


It was the historian Alfred Cobban who first provided some
substantive data seemingly showing that the French Revolution was not
"bourgeois" in its origins; such a designation, he said, was nothing
more than a "myth". He noted that the commercial and
industrial bourgeoisie were not the leaders of the Third Estate.
Rather, they
were mainly lawyers, doctors, even aristocrats. Other historians like
G.V. Taylor and Eisenstein added that it was not "bourgeois" because
1) the French economy was not capitalist before 1789, and 2) the
bourgeoisie were actually seeking and obtaining noble status and, in
common with the nobility, holding "proprietary wealth" (land, venal
offices). Many nobles were engaged in trade, industry, and
finance; thus resulting in a convergence (not contradiction) of
economic interests between these two classes.

In light of these facts, marxists like Comninel concluded that it was
not bourgeois. Elsewhere I criticized Comninel and the
revisionists (S&S, vol 54, no3). Although I no longer agree with
many aspects of this paper (which was actually based on my MA thesis
I wrote for the late George Rude), I think we can still hold that
this revolution was bourgeois not only in its consequences (as Devine
says) but its origins.

First, there is no reason why we should not view the lawyers and
doctors as "bourgeois", since these were highly
educated professionals in tune with the intellectual and cultural
movement of the Enlightenment. They were members of a professional,
urbane class. Secondly, those aristocratic individuals who played a
prominent role in the early phase of the revolution  were
thoroughly "embourgeoisified" in terms of their sources of income and
their ideas. Thirdly, even if nobles and bourgeois were
mixed in terms of their property holdings, they did not share a
single form of property, but two forms - merchant's capital and
aristocratic property - each property based on a different set of
social relations and juridical principles...

What is missing in the marxist analysis is an appreciation of the
Enlightenment in its own right, in a way not
reducible to the economic interests of the bourgeoisie.