Bourgeois Revolutions

[the last donut of the night]

Although I have a basic understanding of what bourgeois revolutions were and what economic and social changes they led to (destroying remaining feudal property relations, temporarily taking away power from the clergy, beating back the more radical, "sans-coulottes" tendencies, etc), I have a few more questions to ask. Mainly, what led to these revolutions (if they all have a similar source) and how do they differ from proletarian revolutions. Also, what processes were used to finalize the transition from feudalism to capitalism? Finally, are bourgeois revolutions still possible today (I know this links to some Maoist theories, so please spare me the Red Dave vs. Alastair type commentary)?

[Bubbles]

Go ask for Man's Worldly Goods at the library, it will give you an idea of how the new classes where growing out of the feudal society.

For example, in the feudal society, there where many 'law' going against free trade and so on, which the bourgeois did not like etc

[Jolly Red Giant]

A few brief answers

Mainly, what led to these revolutions (if they all have a similar source)
Yes they did have a similar source. Every class based society creates within it the seeds of its own destruction. Within feudal society we had the emergence of the merchant and banking class - a class that required the 'free' movement of goods, services and finance. A key impediment to the advance of the merchant class was the prevelence of tolls - on roads, getting into urban markets, import and export taxes, stamp duties etc. Furthermore they were forced to pay significant sums to their feudal lords and the church in order to continue their economic activities. Coupled with this you had the fact that they had little or no influence over government (or actually 'royal') policy. Resting on the peasant class and the poor urban masses they secured the revolutionary overthrow of feudalism and established a bourgeois state that allowed them to control property and trade.


and how do they differ from proletarian revolutions.
The process of a deveoping proletarian revolution is similar - within bourgeois society we have the emergence of the seeds of its own destruction - the industrial working class. The difference is that instead of a small section of society using the masses to overthrow another small section of society - a proletarian revolution involves the conscious act of a majority of the working class. As a result it is necessary for a majority of the working class to develop a class consciousness and draw revolutionary conclusions - rather than a small section of society (the bourgeois class) developing a class consciousness and drawing revolutionary conclusions and then using the expolited masses to carry out the revolution.


Also, what processes were used to finalize the transition from feudalism to capitalism?
Removal of absolute monarchy, creation of the nation state, seperation of church and state etc. These measures did not all happen at once - but an unstoppable momentum developed once the revolutionary process had started


Finally, are bourgeois revolutions still possible today
This is the contentious one - my answer - bourgeois revolutions are no longer possible today. Once a process of bourgeois revolutions began a number of bourgeois states emerged. These states, in keeping with capitalism, attempted to form 'monopolies' - in the case of nation states - to become imperial powers. Once imperialism emerged and was consolidated - then those countries that had not already made the transition were too late to the scene of history and became colonies of the imperialist powers. No colonial country has fully completed the tasks of the bourgeois revolution since independence, primarily because the imperial powers drew lines on a map that ensured continued ethnic / sectarian division within that society to facilitate continued exploitation without the necessity of the use of an imperialist army. This process has been further developed through the process of globalisation.

[costello1977]

Good example to look at is the Irish Revolution of 1919-1921. This was a rising by the people and it was hijacked by the bourgeois leaders who had been in place before the revolution took place.

What is interesting about that is the Civil war which ensued after the war of independence and the lean years after that.

Proof of what James Connolly said, prophetically of the whole situation.

""If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole army of commercial and individual institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs."

[ComradeOm]

Mainly, what led to these revolutions (if they all have a similar source) and how do they differ from proletarian revolutionsThe primary difference as I see it is that it the capitalist mode of production was incubated within the framework of feudal relations. It was therefore capable of co-existing (and vying) with pre-capitalist relationships long before its eventual political supremacy. So in France, Germany, etc, you have the establishment and growth of an industrial (and not-so-industrial) bourgeoisie in the decades leading up to their respective revolutions and conquest of political power

Now the socialist revolution is, interestingly enough, in the opposite scenario. The primary basis of the socialist economy, ie the proletariat, of of course created by capitalism but it is only after a victorious proletarian revolution that the socialist mode of production can emerge. Which can lead to complications


Also, what processes were used to finalize the transition from feudalism to capitalism?Depends largely on the country. There are, and this goes for your entire post, no set rules or processes for the emergence of a new society. Often it takes decades before and after the actual 'revolution' (if indeed there actually is a capital-R revolution) for things to settle down and the unique circumstances of a nation play a huge role. So the emergence of capitalism was different in Britain than it was in France and even more different in Germany

Over time a few common trends may emerge - such as the repeal of feudal laws, town vs countryside clashes, protectionism and then free trade - as countries develop and converge on imperialistic practices ; but it still varied enormously. Napoleon's campaigns, for example, had a huge impact on the abolition of feudal structures throughout much of Europe but its hard to fit such a large event into a general theory of history


Finally, are bourgeois revolutions still possible today (I know this links to some Maoist theories, so please spare me the Red Dave vs. Alastair type commentary)?Possible, yes. Probable... unlikely. Imperialism demands that much of the world be locked into an unfavourable dependency loop (and thus monopolises industrialisation in the West) and most local bourgeoisie are happy to play along with this. It is still possible for a country to break this model and take its place alongside the exploiter nations, as China seems to be doing, but its pretty rare and definitely the exception

But as a rule, the bourgeoisie are no longer revolutionary throughout most of the world. Arguably they haven't been since the late 19th C - when it became apparent that any bourgeois revolution is likely to give rise to communist sentiment amongst the masses. Hence the emergence of 'parties of order' that see the bourgeoisie align themselves with either foreign capitalist powers or local pre-capitalist power structures

[Jolly Red Giant]

So in France, Germany, etc, you have the establishment and growth of an industrial (and not-so-industrial) bourgeoisie in the decades leading up to their respective revolutions and conquest of political power
Not true - both France and Germany had little industrialisation before their respective revolutions.


Which can lead to complications
Maybe you could expand on what complications?


So the emergence of capitalism was different in Britain than it was in France and even more different in Germany
The same general processes were involved.


Napoleon's campaigns, for example, had a huge impact on the abolition of feudal structures throughout much of Europe but its hard to fit such a large event into a general theory of history
Yes Napoleon did introduce many reforms - however there was a significant rolling back of the reforms after his defeat. It was only when the material conditions for revolution were ripe that the revolutions were carried through to their conclusion.


It is still possible for a country to break this model and take its place alongside the exploiter nations, as China seems to be doing, but its pretty rare and definitely the exception
China is riddled with national and ethnic contradictions and if the ruling elite are not extremely careful the entire country could be blown apart.


But as a rule, the bourgeoisie are no longer revolutionary throughout most of the world. Arguably they haven't been since the late 19th C - when it became apparent that any bourgeois revolution is likely to give rise to communist sentiment amongst the masses. Hence the emergence of 'parties of order' that see the bourgeoisie align themselves with either foreign capitalist powers or local pre-capitalist power structures
This is correct - but it is not 'as a rule' - it is a case of necessity.

[Magón]

Although I have a basic understanding of what bourgeois revolutions were and what economic and social changes they led to (destroying remaining feudal property relations, temporarily taking away power from the clergy, beating back the more radical, "sans-coulottes" tendencies, etc), I have a few more questions to ask. Mainly, what led to these revolutions (if they all have a similar source) and how do they differ from proletarian revolutions. Also, what processes were used to finalize the transition from feudalism to capitalism? Finally, are bourgeois revolutions still possible today (I know this links to some Maoist theories, so please spare me the Red Dave vs. Alastair type commentary)?

Well the Spanish Civil War is a good example of a Bourgeois Revolution. Franco and his military coup, who were supported by outside forces such as: The Catholic Church, Italian Fascism, German Nazism, and some big businesses as well. Besides what you've already mentioned, I'd say the difference between a Proletariat Revolution and a Bourgeois Revolution, is that most Proletariat Revolutions aren't backed by such powers or people with much money at all. Sure the Republican Government in Spain was supported somewhat by the USSR, but none of the Militia's, P.O.U.M., C.N.T, U.G.T, etc. were supported by the USSR because the USSR was counter revolutionary to all them; which in a Bourgeois Revolution, you have so many strict and threatening people, you have no choice.

Basically, Proletariat Revolutions aren't as organized politically as a Bourgeois Revolution which is done so by deadly force.

[Os Cangaceiros]

how do they differ from proletarian revolutions.

Just a quick mention of a concept that I find interesting: According to some (I'm thinking specifically of Ken Knabb), capitalism has an extraordinary ability to reappropriate revolutionary movements into it's sphere of power, and as such needs to be abolished extremely rapidly (i.e. gradualism is not an option). This stands in stark contrast to how feudalism was eventually abolished (over centuries). Feudal relations were dealt body blow after body blow, all the way from the establishment of the bedrock of capitalist society (the destruction of the commons, appropriation of monastic lands during Henry VIII's reign and the appropriation of Royalist lands later) to the final nails in Europe's feudal coffin (French Revolution, 1848, Russian serf reform, etc).

Some analysts insist that capitalism could never be abolished in such a manner.

[ComradeOm]

Not true - both France and Germany had little industrialisation before their respective revolutionsHence the reference to "not-so-industrial bourgeoisie". What is clear is that in both cases the capitalist mode of production was well established, and indeed increasingly dominant, prior to the conquest of political power


Maybe you could expand on what complications?Like say, oh I don't know, those encountered during the degeneration of the Russian Revolution


The same general processes were involvedAnd these were? You can of course try to pick out some similar laws/measures but lumping them all into one large set of "general processes" is so generic as to be essentially useless. The specific measures that the French and German bourgeoisie used to cement their rule were largely - not entirely, but largely - dependent on the unique conditions that each acted within. That is what I was referring to above

If you want to propose a set of "general processes" that the bourgeoisie uses to secure power, and I'm sure that they exist on an exceptionally general level, then by all means go ahead and address the OP


Yes Napoleon did introduce many reforms - however there was a significant rolling back of the reforms after his defeat. It was only when the material conditions for revolution were ripe that the revolutions were carried through to their conclusionAnd...? Are you suggesting that Napoleon's campaigns and laws are therefore irrelevant to the wider scheme of things and can therefore be ignored?

The point of using Napoleon was as an illustrative that talk of "general practices" is usually unable to capture specific events and circumstances (or at least poorly suited to doing so) that contributed to the form and spread of bourgeois political power

As for the "rolling back", this can be easily overstated and the reforms lived on in a myriad different ways. On the purely territorial level, for example, the abolition of the HRE and feudal fiefdoms in Germany significantly forwarded the cause of the bourgeoisie in these regions. Even in Italy, where viciously anti-Napoleonic and reactionary regimes came to power, there were efforts to salvage large portions of the, clearly more efficient, Napoleonic administrative state. When these were dismantled, even in part, it lead to the alienation of the bourgeoisie and thus prepared the ground for eventual risings by the latter

[Jolly Red Giant]

Hence the reference to "not-so-industrial bourgeoisie". What is clear is that in both cases the capitalist mode of production was well established, and indeed increasingly dominant, prior to the conquest of political power
Every class based society has within it the seeds of its own destruction - of course there was an emerging bourgeois class - but that is not the same thing as the 'capitalist mode of production' being well established. Particularly in the case of France this was not the case. The German revolution lagged somewhat due to the dominance of Prussia.


Like say, oh I don't know, those encountered during the degeneration of the Russian Revolution
This is completely off the mark -

Your argument in your first post was as follows -

capitalist mode of production pre-existed in feudal society.

socialist mode of production can only emerge following socialist revolution.

You are incorrect in your first assertion.

As for the 'degeneration of the Russian Revolution' - what has that got to do with complications? There was specific reasons for the degeneration, reasons that no longer exist. In other words - if a socialist revolution occured tomorrow the one thing we can say is that it would not degenerate in the fashion of the Russian revolution.


And these were? You can of course try to pick out some similar laws/measures but lumping them all into one large set of "general processes" is so generic as to be essentially useless. The specific measures that the French and German bourgeoisie used to cement their rule were largely - not entirely, but largely - dependent on the unique conditions that each acted within. That is what I was referring to above
And you are incorrect - there was a general process involved in all bourgeois revolutions - of course each revolution did not follow a linear path. But your assertion that there were specific bourgeois revolutions in France and Germany that did not conform to the general process of the attainment of power by the bourgeoisie is false.


then by all means go ahead and address the OP
I did


And...? Are you suggesting that Napoleon's campaigns and laws are therefore irrelevant to the wider scheme of things and can therefore be ignored?
No I am not - but the key component for any bourgeois revolution is the material conditions that exist. In any society if the material conditions do not exist then imposing new structures from the outside will not determine the outcome of events.


The point of using Napoleon was as an illustrative that talk of "general practices" is usually unable to capture specific events and circumstances (or at least poorly suited to doing so) that contributed to the form and spread of bourgeois political power
The opening post did not ask specifically about any country - It asked a general question about 'what led to these revolutions'.


As for the "rolling back", this can be easily overstated and the reforms lived on in a myriad different ways. On the purely territorial level, for example, the abolition of the HRE and feudal fiefdoms in Germany significantly forwarded the cause of the bourgeoisie in these regions. Even in Italy, where viciously anti-Napoleonic and reactionary regimes came to power, there were efforts to salvage large portions of the, clearly more efficient, Napoleonic administrative state. When these were dismantled, even in part, it lead to the alienation of the bourgeoisie and thus prepared the ground for eventual risings by the latter
But again the issue was not 'reforms' but the process of bourgeois revolution. You are taking individual issues and attempting to fit them into a general process to create an argument - when in fact they are pretty much a side issue to the general topic that the question was asked about.

[ComradeOm]

Every class based society has within it the seeds of its own destruction - of course there was an emerging bourgeois class - but that is not the same thing as the 'capitalist mode of production' being well established. Particularly in the case of France this was not the caseSo what exactly were these capitalists doing? Sitting around playing whist while waiting for the Industrial Revolution to kick off proper? Proletarians work for a living, they sell their labour under the capitalist mode of production. Capitalists have no comparable function, save in the most base mercantile sense, in the feudal mode of production. They need to own enterprises, to employ labour, to produce commodities in order to exist as an independent class

Thankfully we know that such capitalists did exist in France prior to the Revolution. They were not yet common, and there was overlap with the more progressive elements of the aristocracy, but by the 1780 there were without question large centres of proto-industry emerging under the command of capitalist entrepreneurs - in short, a developing l'industrie en grand. Commodities - such as Silk and cotton, coal and iron - were being produced - still predominately through the putting out system but with increased mechanisation (such as the introduction of the spinning jenny) - for sale on the market. It was a fair distance from industrial take-off but there is no question that the capitalist mode of production existed and was gaining ground in pre-Revolutionary France


As for the 'degeneration of the Russian Revolution' - what has that got to do with complications? There was specific reasons for the degeneration, reasons that no longer exist. In other words - if a socialist revolution occured tomorrow the one thing we can say is that it would not degenerate in the fashion of the Russian revolutionIts annoying that I have to spell out every comment, no matter how throwaway or insignificant. But here's the quick version:

The Russian Revolution degenerated due to a collapse in the class power of the proletariat after the conquest of political power by the Soviet movement and before this class could construct a socialist economy. This would not have occurred in a bourgeois revolution where the basis of a capitalist economy already existed (in Russia but also in other countries that have made the transition from feudalism) and could serve as a base for the new political superstructure. Hence the slightly more complicated transition from capitalism to socialism. And no, I don't particularly care whether you think this challenge will not happen in the future, it has occurred in the past and is worthy of consideration


And you are incorrect - there was a general process involved in all bourgeois revolutions - of course each revolution did not follow a linear path. But your assertion that there were specific bourgeois revolutions in France and Germany that did not conform to the general process of the attainment of power by the bourgeoisie is falseI did not assert the latter. I merely pointed out that the "general processes" that both revolutions fell under (namely, both being 'bourgeois') are so vague as to be meaningless. I'll take examples:


Removal of absolute monarchy: Did not occur in Germany until an external war forced it in 1918, by which time it was unquestionably a leading capitalist state. Occurred (or began) in France in 1789 only to relapse a number of times in the next century

creation of the nation state: Again, delayed in Germany (didn't occur in Austria) and took a completely different form to that of France

seperation of church and state etc: Didn't occur in the German Empire which saw the continuation of what was effectively a state church. Occurred only in 1905 in France - the Revolution actually established a state-run church
And this is what comes of deliberately seeking comparisons and shoehorning them into a single "general process". The reality is that the tempo and nature of all the measures noted above were dictated by local circumstances. You can use them as a sort of vague capitalist 'To Do' list (if you don't mind being out by a century or so, to start with) but this is of exceptionally limited use when discussing specifics. There there is no substitute for actual class analysis of the country/society at hand


No I am not - but the key component for any bourgeois revolution is the material conditions that exist. In any society if the material conditions do not exist then imposing new structures from the outside will not determine the outcome of eventsAnd the mere existence of appropriate material conditions is not enough on its own. There are obstacles to be overcome and, conversely, ways to further the development of these material conditions. Napoleon's campaigns did both - by abolishing feudal practices and thus allowing the local bourgeoisie to emerge, and providing the state apparatus and constitutional base for them to inhabit. Like it or not, the French campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars played a significant role in the development of European capitalism and, to reiterate my original point, this cannot be captured in any model that relies upon "general practices"


The opening post did not ask specifically about any country - It asked a general question about 'what led to these revolutions'Anyone who feels qualified to talk about what led to the French Revolution without knowing about the material conditions of France pre-revolution is an idiot. Anyone who feels qualified to talk about the French Revolution because they know a bit about the German/Russian/American/whatever Revolution is a moron


But again the issue was not 'reforms' but the process of bourgeois revolution. You are taking individual issues and attempting to fit them into a general process to create an argument - when in fact they are pretty much a side issue to the general topic that the question was asked about.I was actually responding to your particular point (which was false BTW) about the "rolling back" of the reforms. On a higher level this shows, yet again, that the Napoleonic Wars cannot be considered part of some general scheme by which a country does this, then that, and then some of this in order to progress. There is no recipe or textbook (no matter how vague) that details the "process of bourgeois revolution"

And if there is such a textbook or theory and it is unable to account for such specific events... well then its not much use at all, is it?