Re: Classic Revolutions

["Ricardo Duchesne" <RDUCHESN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date sent:      Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:31:14 -0400
> Send reply to:  lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> From:           Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:             pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:        Classic Revolutions

> 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
> Priority: normal
>
> > 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.
>

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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>