American Bourgeoisie Revolution

[Cryotank Screams]

As I am sure, we all have read about the French Bourgeoisie Revolution, the various stories of the Jacobins, Les Enragés, the Herbertists, and the key figures like Robespierre, Marat, Roux, and Hébert, and the various philosophers that propelled the ideological nature of the revolution, and this revolution, though a bourgeoisie revolution, has provided to be very interesting, and useful in study, for Socialists, so my question is, what is your opinion of the American Bourgeoisie Revolution? Who are figures worth study, both leading figures and philosophers? What is to be learned?

[Janus]

Someone created a similar thread recently.American revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63666)
American revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54936&hl=)


what is your opinion of the American Bourgeoisie Revolution?
A bourgeois coup that shifted power to the new colonial elite.


Who are figures worth study, both leading figures and philosophers?
The main guiding ideology: republicanism as well as the philosophies of the various Patriot leaders.

[Cryotank Screams]

Yea, but I didn't see in either thread, mention of class struggles, the role of the rural and urban proletariat, bourgeoisie figureheads, analysis of ideologies, and what could be drawn from the revolution, (if anything), sorry if I am being picky.

[Ander]

American history textbooks make it out to be some kind of heroic struggle which is almost laughable if not terribly sad. The majority of the colonists were indifferent to what was happening at the time! Basically it was a bunch of rich people getting pissed off because the Brits were making money from taxation instead of them. The poor simply got dragged along because they thought that they might just benefit from a change (which for the most part, they didn't).

Was just a bourgeois revolution.

[Janus]

but I didn't see in either thread, mention of class struggles, the role of the rural and urban proletariat, bourgeoisie figureheads, analysis of ideologies, and what could be drawn from the revolution, (if anything), sorry if I am being picky.
I understand. I wasn't exactly sure what kind of discussion you were looking for so I just highlighted a recent one and an older one.

As for class struggle, there really wasn't much internal class warfare going on during the revolution. The Patriots came from a mix of different classes but a strict ideological line/goal was maintained for the purposes of achieving unity and independence first (though the original goal was a return to more salutary neglect but which was dropped after the losses made this untenable).

[Cryotank Screams]

Jello;

So your saying that the proletariat, wasn't angered by the various taxes that also affected them, or the worse conditions they were under than say the bourgeoisie figureheads?

I mean granted the "revolutionary," leaders of the American Bourgeoisie Revolution, all came from the capitalist class, but I don't see how the proletariat and lower classes were not more enraged by the taxes, and laws, and how they didn't play atleast a minor role, in the revolution; perhaps I am just confused and not well versed on the subject.

The capitalists could afford the taxations, much to their dismay, but what about the proletariat who didnn't have such money to spare?

[Ander]

I apologise, I did not explain as much as I should have when I spoke of the poor and rich. Let me do so now.

Doubtless you have heard of the Boston Tea Party, which was one of the major events leading up to the war, correct? This occurred because of the British East India Company which began impose taxes on trade with the American colonies.

Obviously the poor were affected by these taxes as it became more difficult to afford these taxed items (I believe the British taxed tea, stamps, paper, and ink, among other things). But the difference between them and the rich was that they were stirred up by ideas of "taxation without representation." They were angry because they felt that they were being unfairly taxed while having no political say in British parliament.

The capitalists, however, were in this for the money (what a surprise). The East India Company was seriously affecting their profits and restricting them; if I recall correctly, the British were forcing American merchants to sell their products to England for low prices after which the British would turn around and sell those same items to the colonies for much more.

Also, as Janus said, for the most part, historians agree that there was not a significant class struggle within the revolutionary ranks. There was relative unity between the classes involved as they had the same interest of independence in mind.

[Guerrilla22]

It was a revolution inspired by liberal thought, radical for its time yes. Shays' rebellion was closer to a proletarait revolution, although it failed.

[Cryotank Screams]

So, another question I have is what role did the proletariat, both urban and rural, play during the revolution itself? Did they comprise the main decisive forces, which lead to the secession of the U.S. from Britain, or was that the bourgeoisie?

Also, are their any good essays/books of the American Bourgeoisie Revolution, written by a Leftist standpoint?

[Janus]

Well, like in most wars, the workers and farmers composed the majority of the army and carried the brunt of the war while the officer/command corps consisted primarily of the bourgeois elite.

And as for Shay's Rebellion, I would consider that more of a farmer's revolt rather than an industrial proletariat since it was primarily over taxes,etc.


Also, are their any good essays/books of the American Bourgeoisie Revolution, written by a Leftist standpoint?
Perhaps try A People's History of the American Revolution by Rae Raphael.

[Rawthentic]

Before, during, and after the American Revolution there was intense class struggle, as there has always been since the first pilgrims landed. The Founding Fathers, all wealthy elites, began the technique typical of all capitalist wars in that they attempted to channel class hatred into a sense of common unity as a nation, that of course did not exist. Why? The conditions of poor whites, blacks, women, and Indians did not change at all. It was merely a change of ruling class.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:45 pm

what is your opinion of the American Bourgeoisie Revolution?
A bourgeois coup that shifted power to the new colonial elite.
Could you explain how it was a coup?
About 1/3 of Americans fought for independance,
1/3 was indifferent, and the other 3rd were pro-royalist.

It appeared to have considerable amount of support.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:13 am
Shays' rebellion was closer to a proletarait revolution, although it failed.
I thought that was more of a slave-holders rebellion seeing how it was landowners who had slaves were the ones rebelling.

[Janus]

Could you explain how it was a coup?
A coup is simply a transferal of power from one elite group to another. Just because common people supported it doesn't make it a true revolution. In fact, many coups are originally supported by the people and were intended to be done in their interest.


I thought that was more of a slave-holders rebellion seeing how it was landowners who had slaves were the ones rebelling.
Most of the rebels were simply small farmers who didn't have any slaves.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 14, 2007 02:04 am
So, another question I have is what role did the proletariat, both urban and rural, play during the revolution itself? Did they comprise the main decisive forces, which lead to the secession of the U.S. from Britain, or was that the bourgeoisie?
The proletariat in colonial America was tiny and irrelevant. There were slaves, indentured servants, peasants and artisans but virtually no proletariat. The was was no a bourgeois revolution nor did it establish capitalism. Pre-capitalist systems remained throughout the country in the immediate post-war period. Slavery was still practiced in most of the country and other pre-capitalist systems continued (such as landlord/peasant exploitation, small peasant landholders, etc.). Capitalism didn't really develop until the 'market revolution' of the early 1800s and that was only in the Northeast. Capitalism didn't become the nation-wide economic system until after the civil war. If the US ever had a bourgeois revolution, and it probably didn't, it was the civil war. The war for independence was caused by the inter-imperial crisis of the mid to late 1700s. Due to constantly warring with each other the costs of maintaining European empires increased and England attempted to pay for this through taxing its colonies and implementing other policies that pissed the American colonists, including the colonial elite, off. They rebelled and obtained independence with the help of a rival empire, France (note again the inter-imperial rivalry ripping empires apart). The rebellion also made them more open to alternative ideas, such as liberalism & republicanism, some of which were implementing in a limited way after the war.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+March 14, 2007 04:17 am--> (EL KABLAMO @ March 14, 2007 04:17 am)
[email protected] 14, 2007 01:13 am
Shays' rebellion was closer to a proletarait revolution, although it failed.
I thought that was more of a slave-holders rebellion seeing how it was landowners who had slaves were the ones rebelling. [/b]
No, they were small farmers, slave owners were the ones maintaining large plantations. They were angered by massive government taxes after the revolution. Quite a few of the farmers involved were involved in the barter economy, so they didn't have money to pay to the government.

[blake 3:17]

I don't think the American "Revolution" was an actual revolution. While it was on the side of Progress, this was progress to which slavery and genocide were intrinsic rather than an "error" or deviation. This is in opposition to the revolution in France which helped emancipate slaves.

However, it is important to recognize its ideological effect in favour of the French Revolution and national liberation movments. One of the most powerful propaganda tools Ho Chi Minh had was to say he simply wanted a Declaration of Independence for Vietnam.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by blake 3:[email protected] 24, 2007 01:03 pm
I don't think the American "Revolution" was an actual revolution.
The word revolution, simply means a "dramatic change," and in a political context would mean that state A, has been destroyed, eliminated, overthrown, in a coup d'etat, which the end result is the emergence and creation of state B, which has changed the former state, politically, economically, socially, etc.

The American bourgeoisie revolution did, it overthrew the British government within the colonies, and the monarchist system, for an independent American government, under a republican system, and went from being a colony, to a independent state, hence there was dramatic change in almost all fields, hence it was a bourgeoisie revolution.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The anti-federalists and republicans were pretty interesting. Despite the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and thus was mentally sick, I was always interested about his support for the Shay's Rebellion.