THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AS A SCHOOL FOR A MODERN REVOLUTIONARY
PART 1. STRUGGLE AGAINST THE OLD REGIME
CHAPTER 1: FOUR AUTHORS ON THE CAUSES OF REVOLUTION IN FRANCE IN XVIII CENTURY *
(* I should note that in my review of historiography of the French revolution, I have omitted a very important work of socialist Louis Blanc. For this criticism, I am grateful to Oleg Dubrovsky, in his letter from 20 of February, 1998).
1. Thomas Carlyle on causes of revolution
Carlyle is very much to the taste of the modern post-Soviet bureaucracy. It published his book "The French revolution" in 1991, the year when Boris Yeltsin came to power, together with "liberal reformers", such as Yegor Gaidor. Why is Carlyle liked by this super-reactionary clique? In general, Carlyle does not rise to the level of science, which means first of all trying to understand the causes of events. Carlyle is a literary moralizer.
Philosophy of history of Carlyle, his understanding of the deepest causes of the French revolution is captured in the passage where he puts a blame for the revolution on everybody - from a shoe-shine boy to the noble aristocrat - who, while not doing anything, made a pretense of being very busy and active. Inactivity and lies have accumulated over many years and have resulted in the outburst of the French revolution.
It would be interesting to find out from the author how is it that a shoe-shine boy can make a pretense of activity without being active? How a noble can do this, while the peasants work for him, we understand. How bureaucracy can make a show of "paper activity", without getting anything done, we also understand. But how a shoe-shine boy can make a pretense of activity, when his client will pay him according to the result, is a mystery for us. The author hides the parasitism of modern bourgeoisie and bureaucracy with a theory that all classes of modern society put on "a show of activity", blaming the revolution on "lazy people".
First, Carlyle occupies a counter-revolutionary position, for he sees the revolution as some sort of evil. Second, Carlyle's theory speaks against the facts of history. For example, J.J. Rousseau, in his "Confessions", describes a peasant who hides bread and other products from a stranger, fearing that he may be a tax-collector. This was a system very similar to extortion of modern post-Soviet bureaucracy.
Thus, generalizing the "pathos" and verbosity of our English author, we can say that for him the causes of revolution are inactivity and parasitism, lies and hypocrisy of all people, no matter what class they belong to. As for the more specific causes of the revolution, Carlyle notes financial bankruptcy of the state, but this was caused by the moral characteristics mentioned above. According to him, the ideological bankruptcy has set in a long time ago, but gradually it has passed into economic bankruptcy and has become intolerable.
2. Aulard on causes of revolution
Aulard gives a good characteristic to authors like Carlyle. Discussing the method of his investigation, in the introduction to his "Political History of the French Revolution, 1789-1804", he writes that it is just recently that a group of writers and professors has formed in France who try to substitute the "literature school", which sees in the French revolution a good, moralistic story, with a "scientific school".
It is interesting to note the dialectic of forms of knowledge: from "literature", a-la Carlyle, to bourgeois-scientific, a-la Aulard. Bourgeoisie is capable of developing history as a science only up to a certain level. Modern revolutionaries do not talk about "history", but about a "permanent Revolution". In other words, from being merely an object of contemplation, it has become for them also an activity in which they're involved themselves (fuck the "value neutrality" thesis!). Moreover, it is a process which is not limited by time limits, but is permanent, transforming itself from a lower form into a higher.
As the Soviet bureaucracy has adopted the 1830 view of Carlyle, we can judge how reactionary it is, how anti-scientific, to what fall of culture it leads us. Even Aulard, who is nothing but a diploma-carrying servant of the bourgeoisie, is above that level. But the slogan "Down with Carlyle!" doesn't mean "Long live Aulard!"
History of the French revolution, for Aulard, is a development of the "deep idea" which is the Declaration of the Rights of Man. According to Aulard, if we didn't have this piece of paper, we would be denied all the fruits of the bourgeois civilization: "in this political history of the French revolution, my aim is to show how the principles of the Declaration of the rights were realized in practice, how they were realized in institutions, interpreted in speeches, in the press, in the actions of various parties, in this or that manifestation of the public opinion".
Aulard dares to flirt with socialism, but like with a dangerous pet. As we can guess, he sees socialism as development of the Declaration of the Rights of Man: "it is a mistake to oppose the principles of socialism to the principles of 1789... Without a doubt, socialism was in sharp contrast with the social system founded in 1789; but it is also a logical and extremely dangerous (if you please) consequence of the principles of 1789; this conclusion was used by Babeuf, the theoretician of the "equal"... in the declaration of Rights, discussed in the period between 20 and 26 August, 1789, democratic and social republic is contained in potential form".
In what lies the falseness of the given view on history? This is an idealist point of view, as it treats history as realization of some abstract idea. Aulard differs from a theologian in that the role of a deity is taken by the Declaration of the Right of Man (which reveals his class position). What are the origins of this Declaration? What classes does it serve? Aulard replies to this question: "From the times of the American war (of Independence) there is in France a general admiration for the American institutions, which were the product of the English thought, originating from Locke and republicans of 1648, but which in form and character appeared as a child of the French thought".
Thus, there is a following sequence presented by Aulard: the French declaration of 1789 was borrowed from the Americans. They took it partially from English, and partially from the French republican ideologists. For the Englishmen, it is mainly Locke; for the French, it is writers of the Enlightenment. Thus, thought gives birth to thought, and through the means of parties, the public opinion, political institutions, etc. it is realized into life, moves history. Such is the political idealism of Aulard.
3. Peter Kropotkin on causes of revolution
Every revolution, according to Kropotkin, has two deep-seated causes. One is the "inflow of new concepts about political re-constitution of a state" among the educated classes. The other is the desire of the "Third Estate" to improve its condition. In general, this is called "a theory of double movement in a revolution": the ideas of theoreticians + popular movement. Here is how Kropotkin describes his theory in a letter to one of the investigators of anarchism Nettlau: "In order to achieve such big results, in order for a movement to achieve the size of a revolution, as it was in England in 1648-1688, and in France in 1789-1793, it is not enough for a certain ideological movement to appear among the educated classes, no matter how deep is the current; and it is not enough for there to be popular rebellions, no matter how numerous and how widely spread. It is necessary for a REVOLUTIONARY ACTION, coming from the people, should coincide with MOVEMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT... originating from the educated classes. It is necessary for the two movements, even if for a time, to give each other a hand".
The epoch of Enlightenment preceded the French revolution. It involved writers, philosophers, economists, etc. not only in France, but all over Europe. Epistemological skepticism of Hume in England awakens Kant from his dogmatic slumber in Prussia (see the latter's introduction to "The Critique of Pure Reason"); physiocrats in France, headed by Quesnay, Turgot, Mirabeau (the father) create a theoretical ground for Adam Smith and his "The Wealth of Nations", published in the memorable year of the American Declaration of Independence (1776); the works of Voltaire make fun of the church, the bastion of reaction in modern history. Think of a value of his slogan "Ecraser l'infame!", said in relation to religion, and persistently covered up in modern times by ideological servants of capital. Holbach provides foundation for materialism, a new world view instead of the religious one, and his protege Diderot gives a boot in the back to the Church with such words as "The Nun", revealing corruption and imbecility of such institutions.
As to the "popular movements" of the times, here the moving force was "desperation felt by the peasants in the years of bad harvest, when he saw that land remains untilled in the hands of the landlord and serves only the purpose of noble entertainment, while there is a hunger in the villages". HUNGER AND NEED OF LAND - THESE WERE THE MAIN REASONS FOR AWAKENING OF REBELLIOUS SPIRIT AMONG THE PEASANTS.
Uprisings start immediately after the death of Louis XV in 1774. People expect immediate improvements. The number of officially poor is around 1 million, with the general population being around 25 million. Rebellions start in April 1775. In Dijon the people attack the houses and mills of the bread merchants. Same things happen later in Lille, Amien, Oxere. People gather in various places and send deputations to the king asking for the price of bread to be lowered. The king promises this, but nothing is done. The soldiers attack "the bandits" who came to Paris and smash the bread shops. "Two of the rebels were hanged on the Greve square, and as they were dying, they yelled that they die for the people". "In 1782 and 1783 the rebellions renew and continue right up to the time of the revolution."
1786 - an uprising of the weavers of Lyons. Reason for the uprising: difference between their wages and the cost of living. 1787 - Parisian parlement (sic) refuses to register the edict of the king referring to new taxes. The parlement is sent to Trua. People conduct violent manifestations in support of the parlement, and as these do not stop, the parlement is returned to Paris. 1788 - an uprising in Bretagne. Reason: conflict between the parlement and the king. Same things happens in Grenoble. In the same year, 1788, in Paris there are clashes between the people and the army, as people demonstrate and demand resignation of unpopular government officials.
In a brochure, published on 10 April 1789, titled "Les fleux de l'agriculture...", we find some of the reasons which hinder agriculture: large taxes, damage sustained by the landlords' right to hunt, corrupt judicial system.
Critique of Kropotkin's theory of revolution comes down to the following:
1) Why did the uprisings start with the death of Louis XV and not, for example, with the death of Louis XIV? What was happening at this time in the sphere of material production? We need to know the economic history of the period.
2) If a cause of revolutions is "a movement of revolutionary thought originating from the educated classes" in interaction with the people's rebellions, then what was the nature of this interaction? The French people were mostly illiterate in this period. For example, according to Aulard: "In Nemur district, 47 first electors voted, of which 10 signed their names, and 37 put a cross, which makes for 79% illiterate". If the electors were illiterate, what can we say about the simple peasants? Most of the people have not read Rousseau and Mably, and their ideas were purely negative, e.g. "Aristocrats on the lamp-post!". We must understand better how revolutionary ideas can interact with masses of the people to stir a revolution.
4. Jean Jaurez on the causes of the French revolution
Juarez considers himself a Marxist. Hence, he should respect Marx's thesis on causes of revolution. This thesis can be found, for example, in "The Contribution to the Critique of the Political Economy", from 1859: "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed".
Did Juarez respect this thesis, i.e. that fundamental cause of revolution is a conflict between development of the productive forces and existing relations of production? Let's look at what he says about causes of revolution (chapters 1 and 2 of his "Socialist history of the French revolution").
First, we hear about the heavy weight of taxes on the Third Estate, as the Church and the Nobles did not have to pay them. But, Juarez says, this could not be the cause of revolution: "it is possible to estimate that feudal taxes did not bring more than a million, and if we consider that Arthur Young has calculated the value of gross product of the agricultural sector of France, in 1789, as slightly over 5.5 billion, and the value of the surplus value as 2.5 billion, then taking of 100 million for the benefit of the feudal lords, no matter how archaic and hateful it was, could not overburden the nation".
Second, Juarez thinks that if the monarchy could "provide security to the financial, trade, and industrial bourgeoisie, carefully keep its side of the agreements, and thrifty attitude to state finances, then probably the Revolution of 1789 would not happen".
"Security" means safeguarding bourgeoisie from expropriation by the ruling class, which was court nobility in France. And from history we find out that occasionally, such expropriations did take place. For example, when the king needed money for the budget, his controllers could force the financial bourgeoisie to "lend" money. Hence, Rivarol wrote: "The revolution was made by rentier".
Bourgeoisie is always under the threat of expropriation if it does not hold the power in a state. For example, such is the threat it is facing today in the former USSR.
The third cause of revolution Juarez sees in "social maturity" of bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and in progress of science, on the other. He writes: "At the end of XVIII century two great forces exerted influence on the minds, on the flow of history... On the one hand, the French nation has reached intellectual maturity. On the other hand, French bourgeoisie has reached social maturity... French bourgeoisie was conscious of its strength, its wealth, its rights, its almost limitless possibility of further development; in a word, the bourgeoisie has reached class self-consciousness, while the scientific thought has achieved the knowledge of the Universe. These are the two passionate sources of the revolution".
Hence, self-consciousness of the top layer of the oppressed classes is one of the causes of revolution. Self-consciousness means that the given class has achieved a certain power in a society, and is conscious of that. The second cause of revolution is progress of science.
Similar thesis on the cause of revolution was put forth by Napoleon; he wrote: "It's a result of work of ideologists". Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893), one of the exponents of positivism, also thinks that the revolution was a product of abstract thinking, the roots of which are to be found in ancient Greece. He writes: "She was led on the road of dangerous and systematic mistakes and dangerous extremes under influence of general and hazy concepts, almost without meaning, such as equality, humanity, right, people's sovereignty, progress..."
Commenting on this idea of Taine, Juarez says: "he thinks that philosophic theories could fire up and lead to an uprising an entire nation... He was completely ignorant about the growth of production, labor, savings, that industrial and trade progress, which allowed bourgeoisie to become a first-rate social power and caused it to take upon itself the management of society, in which its interests came to occupy such an important place and could be endangered in a number of ways".
The best explanation of the French revolution we find in Juares' review of Barnave's theory. Antoine Barnave was one of the leaders of the Feuillant party, i.e. the party of large bourgeoisie, consisting of bondholders of East-India Company, the tax collectors, the financial aristocracy, etc. In 1792 Barnave wrote an excellent book "Introduction a la Revolution francaise". In this book Barnave gives us what may be called the most "Marxist" theory of the French revolution and development of human society in general (long before Marx was born).
First, argues Barnave, a revolution in one country should be seen as a result of dialectical development in all countries: "It is impossible to form a proper idea of the great revolution which stirred France, if one looks at it in isolation, without connection with the history of adjacent countries and previous centuries. In order to define its real character and discover its real causes, it is necessary to widen the intellectual point of view, it is necessary to define the place occupied by us in a wider system: to investigate the general movement which has caused from feudalism up to our days for European states to change the form of government..."
Thus, he opens up for us the methodology of study of revolution. To understand one revolution in isolation from others is impossible. The French revolution of XVIII century should be studied in relation to other revolutions, such as the English revolution of XVII century or the Russia revolution of XX century. Only thus we will be able to grasp the general traits of this process, behind the mountains of specific details, names, laws, etc. Let's repeat the words of Hegel: "the essence must appear".
Barnave continues: "among many causes which give rise to political events, there are those which are so intimately connected to the nature of things, constant and systematic influence of which is so much superior to accidental causes, that in a given time period they almost always lead to a definite result. These causes always promote a change in the face of a nation, the smaller events are determined by the general results, which originate from these causes. Great historic events are prepared by these causes, while the secondary causes, to which these events are almost always assigned, only give to them specific character..." Here, it is interesting to observe the idea of two types of causes: the primary and secondary; the later give to the events their "specific character", while the former "change the face of a nation". So what are the primary causes?
Barnave draws for us epochs in development of mankind. First, a human obtained his sustenance with the help of bow and arrows. Democracy prevailed in such society, as people were independent of one another and "natural equality" prevailed. Then, an increase in population and a need for a more constant source of food leads people to take up herding. They tend the animals which before they used to kill. Property begins to appear, as there is a surplus product in comparison with what is needed for everyday sustenance. Political institutions appear for defense of this property. These institutions take up the form of a monarchy or aristocracy. Further growth of population leads people to give up nomadic lifestyle and take up agriculture. This leads to the institution of private property on land. A slave who tended the animals before is now needed to work the land. A decentralized aristocratic form of government best fits such a society. However, according to Barnave, "dictatorship of aristocracy lasts until the agricultural people are in ignorance about manufactures, and property in land continues to be the sole form of wealth. As the natural development of society consists in a constant growth of population and industry, until they reach the highest levels of civilization, foundation of manufactures and trade must necessarily follow the dominance of agriculture." Here, Barnave vacillates to which factor should he assign the development of society: the growth of population or development of industry. Finally, he embraces the second: "From the times when the manufactures and trade penetrate into the depths of society, and prepare for the laboring classes a new source of wealth, a revolution is prepared in political institutions; A NEW DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH LEADS TO A NEW DISTRIBUTION OF POWER. Just like ownership of land has given power to the aristocracy, industrial property gives power to the people..." The face of this laboring class is constantly changing. At the dawn of capitalism, such were the artisans and the traders; in XIX century, such were the bourgeoisie and the working class. In our times (of decline of capitalism, development towards socialism) "the laboring classes" are those who work in the spheres of information and the most advanced knowledge.
Hence, according to Barnave, the "development of industry" is the primary cause of political revolutions. But Juarez, commenting on Barnave, says something different: "A revolution is prepared by the social evolution, which has gradually given to property a decisive meaning, and hence place the forces of political power under the forms of property (!). The current industrial and mobile property, i.e. the bourgeois property, is in full power; hence, bourgeois democracy is inescapable and revolution is a historic necessity". It seems to me feuillant Barnave is more of a "Marxist" than socialist Juarez, as the latter confuses a judicial category of "property" with the actual development of the productive forces. This theoretical mix-up is no accident, as Juarez is a theoretical representative of the Second International before WWI. There is a straight line of descent from Jean Juarez (of 1910's) to Leon Blum (of 1930's) to Francois Mitterand ( of 1980's). Such "Marxists" prepare a room for Le Pen, and after him - fascism.
* * *
We can continue examining the views of various historians on the causes of the revolution, for example the views of Albert Mathiez. However, it seems that they can not give anything new. Historiography can not excel the revolutionary point of view presented by Barnave. Its purpose is not to be "a guide for action" (Lenin), but a way to spend time for the "educated classes".
Summarizing:
1. Carlyle - on the level of moral storytelling. He sees causes of revolution in parasitism and lies of people in general.
2. Aulard - attempts to raise history to the level of science. He sees the French revolution as embodiment of Declaration of the Rights of Man.
3. Kropotkin - an anarchist, a theoretician of revolution; sees cause of revolution in the union between the movement of the revolutionary thought, coming from the educated classes, and the rebellions caused by hunger, coming from the people.
4. Juarez - pseudorevolutionary. The most valuable in his story is resurrection of the views of a revolutionary Feuillant, Antoine Barnave. The cause of revolutions is in progressive development of the productive forces, and hence changes in the social and political institutions of society.
DISCUSSION OF CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION, BASED ON MATERIAL FROM JUAREZ index