When did the other countries' bourgeois revolution

[furious]

We all know England in 1640, France in 1789, America in 1776 and Russia in 1917. When did Germany's bourgeois revolution take place? Belgium? Holland? Iceland?
These are rich countries. I'm just curious.

[gilhyle]

This is an interesting question. In Germany, for example, it must have happened in phases:

- Napoleon instituted key changes on behalf of a weak German Bourgeoisie (equality before the law)

- the Prussian aristocracy united the country - but on behalf of the bourgeoisie (1871)

- the German Working class finalised the institutionalisation of of parliamenary democracy (1918)

....and I am not sure when the land question got resolved.

[BreadBros]

I'd agree with gilhyle. If you wanna boil down Germany to one date, it'd probably be 1918. As for those other countries, I'm no expert on every single European country but my guess is they never underwent a particular bourgeois revolution. Instead, the reforms that are the product of bourgeois revolutions spread to those regions from other parts of Europe. Thats why in the case of Netherlands and others they still have a Monarch although the legal and economic structure is clearly capitalist/bourgeois and the monarch is very different (if not wholly symbolic).

[Severian]

It happened in phases in a lot of countries. The U.S. had a second bourgeois revolution in the Civil War plus Radical Reconstruction, for example. France had several - there was still a monarchy before 1848, and an "Empire" under Napoleon's nephew until 1871!

Holland had the first, actually: The United Provinces, a republic, was created in the early 17th century, coming out of a war of independence from Spain.

Germany - the big one was 1848, but that was put down. Plus what gilhyle said.

[Dimentio]

Why this fixation on revolutionary events? Feudalism already started to rot after the Black Death, and the system of slavery was never abolished by a revolution. Most likely, socialism will not be established by the barricades or in the form imagined by 19th century thinkers.

[MarxSchmarx]

Depends on who you ask, but Japan's bourgeois revolution is nominally given as November 9, 1867 when the feudal Shogunate officially capitulated to "restorationists" that went on to set up a nominally liberal, capitalist state. A decent, but ultimately unpersuasive, case could also be made for 1945-1952 during the Allied (read: American) occupation when the government got serious about human rights, universal suffrage, etc...

[Labor Shall Rule]

The bourgeoisie was embryonic, relatively small in size, but with the potential to carry foward it's historic tasks. It was strong mostly in the Holstein and Kiel regions due to the importance of oversea trade. But, as stated, they were given a position of control through the conquests of Napolean.

The growth of the railroads, the introduction of modern industry, and the expansion of the cities were the preconditions for capitalist production within Germany; through the institution of the Zollverin, or a customs union that granted the bourgeoisie a bigger market to shift their merchandise freely throughout the Germanic states, an unprecedented tempo of capital accumulation was built up that increased the expansion of the productive forces.

With the Seven Weeks War and the Franco-Prussian War, the German nation-state was born.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 18, 2007 04:30 pm

A decent, but ultimately unpersuasive, case could also be made for 1945-1952 during the Allied (read: American) occupation when the government got serious about human rights

Is this a joke?
Compared to the period before the second world war, post-world war Japan is a really tame place.

[Raúl Duke]

Depends on who you ask, but Japan's bourgeois revolution is nominally given as November 9, 1867 when the feudal Shogunate officially capitulated to "restorationists" that went on to set up a nominally liberal, capitalist state. A decent, but ultimately unpersuasive, case could also be made for 1945-1952 during the Allied (read: American) occupation when the government got serious about human rights, universal suffrage, etc...

....I always thought that the shift of power (from feudal to bourgeoisie) in Japan started during the "Meiji Era" since here began rapid industrialization for Japan...

[Janus]

I always thought that the shift of power (from feudal to bourgeoisie) in Japan started during the "Meiji Era" since here began rapid industrialization for Japan...
The Meiji Restoration began in 1867.

[gilhyle]

The problem is to think about a revolution as a coup, as happening at one date. As the origianl concept implies a revolution is a complete turn.

We are already in the socialist revolution.

[Hit The North]

gil:


We are already in the socialist revolution.

Explain.

[Naxal]

Capitalism has already reached pretty much the whole world, I would say that only a handful of the most isolated countries had not felt its effects- possibly Bhutan or some of the intensely tribal parts of Africa? I'm not sure, I don't know enough about Bhutan or tribal Africa.

However, many people will criticise me now because they will say that nations such as those in Latin America, Asia and Africa are still in the throws of feudalism- they are underdeveloped, the bourgeoise is not the dominant class etc etc.

I would argue that their underdevelopment is a manifestation of the capitalist structure that is at play, it is a result of the integration of these countries into a metropolitan-satellite relationship with the 'Capitalist Core' in North America and Europe. Their underdevelopment is not 'proof' that they are feudal, it's proof that they are part of the Capitalist system-

Industrial Capitalism (I do not buy this 'Post-Industrial' bullshit- computers are capital, robots are capital and production is expanding thanks to increased and more efficent industrial production) can be divided into two 'sections'- the metropolis, which is the area that either produces secondary and tertiary goods or is home to the producers of said goods (for instance outsourcing- it may be made in Mexico, but for all intents and purposes it's an American good). In order to produce secondary or tertiary goods and services, as the name would suggest, you need primary goods- these are provided by the Satellite which is underdeveloped because any major native development is feared and suppressed, as best they can, by the Metropolis because it threatens the flow of primary goods to them and threatens the Metropolis monopoly over secondary/tertiary production. You cannot look at levels of development, political systems or social relations and go 'Ah Ha! Feudalism! It's got the feudal look about it', these countries are dependent on the Capitalist Metropolis' and integrated into the Capitalist structure- they are Satellites, their underdevelopment is the most obvious example of this.

I think people get far too hung up on literal revolutions as great marking points, but most revolutions and economic and class changes happen in big rooms with very expensive tables with various business leaders and politicians agreeing to things and shaking hands. In 95% of the world the 'Feudal Revolution' has come and gone, with 95% of the world being integrated into the Capitalist structure. In addition, people tend to see history as universal- India is dominated by the Bourgeoise and is fully integrated into the capitalist structure as a regional Metropolis and international Satellite, but in many parts of India little has changed since the Mughal Empire. My final criticism is people tend to see history as going in one big straight line. It doesn't, classes continue to fight and may restore themselves- the English Revolution, I believe, is a good example of this. The revolution did not fail, it was overthrown (in a very, very English fashion). Japan is another, the Meiji Restoration was a definate move to Bourgeois dominance, but by the '30s there was a definate shift back to feudal organisation and politics, as well as a restoration of the cult of the emperor that had died out even before the Meiji Restoration. Things are constantly changing, but they don't change in a single direction.

Underdevelopment and Latin American by Andre Gunder Frank
Is a very good book that relates to this topic. It's not too dense a read either, though having a little familarity with economics makes things a lot smoother.

[slybackstabber]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:10 pm
However, many people will criticise me now because they will say that nations such as those in Latin America, Asia and Africa are still in the throws of feudalism- they are underdeveloped, the bourgeoise is not the dominant class etc etc.

I would argue that their underdevelopment is a manifestation of the capitalist structure that is at play, it is a result of the integration of these countries into a metropolitan-satellite relationship with the 'Capitalist Core' in North America and Europe. Their underdevelopment is not 'proof' that they are feudal, it's proof that they are part of the Capitalist system-


We call the economic system prevailing in Asia and Africa "comprador capitalism": there's no independent bourgeoisie as such, but a comprador class that functions as commission agents and junior partners to transnational (i.e. North American, European, and Japanese) capital. Usually the ruling class in such societies is composed of a mix of comprador capitalists, landowners, and senior army officers.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 19, 2007 02:01 pm
gil:


We are already in the socialist revolution.

Explain.
Marxists - with some good reason - focus on the seizure, dismantling and replacement of the Capitalist State. But the building of a socialist society is a much longer process of which that political revolution is just a (critical) moment.

the essence of the building of a socialist society is the socialization process. through the internatioanalization of the economy, the socialization and automization of housework and care activities, the increased intermediation of assets through the financial system, the patchy intensification of democratic structures, the growth of regulation, the patchy development of a communist culture etc. etc., socialism is growing within capitalism.

Now Marxists will often (understandably) emphasise the spvere limitations on these process, limitations that cannot be overcome as long as the State remains in capitalist hands - correct. But they do not for that reason cease to be part of the socialization process; they do not cease to be, in part progressive.

Similarly, the transformation of feudal into capitalist society started long before the fall of the feudal state. The trends towards the freeing up of labor from land go right back into the heart of feudal society.

Now I think it is fair to say that the seizure and replacement of the State needs to come much earlier in the process of the socialist revolution than in the process of the capitalist revolution (in which it could happen quite late because of the Absolutist State which often rested on financial or monopolistic cliques from wthin the bourgeoisie while ultimately defending feudal property relationsh.)

[Naxal]

Originally posted by slybackstabber+June 19, 2007 10:20 pm--> (slybackstabber @ June 19, 2007 10:20 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 10:10 pm
However, many people will criticise me now because they will say that nations such as those in Latin America, Asia and Africa are still in the throws of feudalism- they are underdeveloped, the bourgeoise is not the dominant class etc etc.

I would argue that their underdevelopment is a manifestation of the capitalist structure that is at play, it is a result of the integration of these countries into a metropolitan-satellite relationship with the 'Capitalist Core' in North America and Europe. Their underdevelopment is not 'proof' that they are feudal, it's proof that they are part of the Capitalist system-


We call the economic system prevailing in Asia and Africa "comprador capitalism": there's no independent bourgeoisie as such, but a comprador class that functions as commission agents and junior partners to transnational (i.e. North American, European, and Japanese) capital. Usually the ruling class in such societies is composed of a mix of comprador capitalists, landowners, and senior army officers.[/b]
I've never heard the term 'Comprador Capitalism', I think I should look it up. But sticking with my Dependency Theoyr/World Systems Theory arguement:

Your description is of what I would term 'Facilitator Bourgeoise', their purpose is to facilitate the operations of the Metropolian Bourgeoise in their extraction of primary resources, and it is very true that they are not independent, in a similar way to the natives who were integrated into the colonial regimes of the countries.

However, there is another contradiction that I think I should explain before I start talking about the other half of the Bourgeoise. My description above is an international description of the Metropolitan-Satellite relationship, however within each country there is an internal Metropolitan-Satellite relationship between the central Metropolis and its Hinterland (which is a Satellite of the Metropolis) and between the Metropolis & Hinterland and the rural areas (which are a Satellite of both the Metropolis and the Hinterland). International Capitalists tend to only deal with cities, rural areas require more effort, more cost and so on and this quickly wittles away profits and thus in their demand for primary resources they go to the cities. They then buy the primary sources off the Facilitator Bourgeoise. Buy where do the Facilitator Bourgeoise obtain their primary resources? They buy them off the Regional Bourgeoise, who may own mines, land (for crops, cotton is a good example). The Regional Bourgeoise are dependent on the Facilitators, but this is only because the Facilitators have the cash- their existance is not dependent on anyone.

To display this as a chain will probably explain this more clearly:

The Cotton is grown by a farmer.
↓
Cotton is bought off farmer by Regional Bourgeoise
↓
Regional Bourgeoise transports cotton to Metropolitan area, sometimes via smaller Hinterland towns etc.
↓
Facilitator Bourgeoise buys cotton off Regional Bourgeoise
↓
Facilitator Bourgeoise sells cotton to International Capitalists

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by gilhyle+June 19, 2007 11:54 pm--> (gilhyle @ June 19, 2007 11:54 pm)
Citizen [email protected] 19, 2007 02:01 pm
gil:


We are already in the socialist revolution.

Explain.
Marxists - with some good reason - focus on the seizure, dismantling and replacement of the Capitalist State. But the building of a socialist society is a much longer process of which that political revolution is just a (critical) moment.

the essence of the building of a socialist society is the socialization process. through the internatioanalization of the economy, the socialization and automization of housework and care activities, the increased intermediation of assets through the financial system, the patchy intensification of democratic structures, the growth of regulation, the patchy development of a communist culture etc. etc., socialism is growing within capitalism.

Now Marxists will often (understandably) emphasise the spvere limitations on these process, limitations that cannot be overcome as long as the State remains in capitalist hands - correct. But they do not for that reason cease to be part of the socialization process; they do not cease to be, in part progressive.

Similarly, the transformation of feudal into capitalist society started long before the fall of the feudal state. The trends towards the freeing up of labor from land go right back into the heart of feudal society.

Now I think it is fair to say that the seizure and replacement of the State needs to come much earlier in the process of the socialist revolution than in the process of the capitalist revolution (in which it could happen quite late because of the Absolutist State which often rested on financial or monopolistic cliques from wthin the bourgeoisie while ultimately defending feudal property relationsh.)[/b]
You make some interesting points. Although I'm not sure I'm convinced. I think we need to separate the continuing class struggle and the continuing development of capitalist relations from the actual revolution. Revolutions occur when people consciously begin to transform the world around them according to their class interest.

On the other hand, I agree that capitalism is laying the material conditions which make socialism possible.

Nevertheless, the 'socialization process' is uneven and reliant on the tides of class struggle. All the phenomena you mention are evident but a number of countervailing tendencies are also manifest, particularly at the inter-subjective level of consciousness. For instance, internationalization of the economy is not necessarily producing a global, internationalist consciousness but seems to be intensifying nationalist sentiment in many parts of the world. I'm not sure what you mean by the "increased intermediation of assets through the financial system" so can't really comment on that. However, the increased fluidity of the movements of capital around the globe only seem to strengthen the grip of international capital and erode the power of labour movements and reformist governments. Meanwhile, the move in the most advanced capitalist economies is towards deregulation. The intensification of democratic structures (if this is indeed happening) seems overshadowed by the use of "democratic values" as a smoke-screen for seizing oil in the Middle East; or the falling rates of participation in Western democracies and the sheer cynicism of their electorates towards any ideas of radical social change. As for the "patchy development of communist culture", this a culture which has been dying on the vine in recent decades - necessarily so because of the reverses suffered by our class in the continuing class struggle.

In other words, I don't see a linear movement towards socialism within the "womb" of capitalist society.

Doesn't Marx make the point that, unlike the bourgeosie who can build up their economic power within feudal society, the proletariat cannot prosper within capitalism and therefore need to smash the political state and expropriate the bourgeoisie as the starting point for its ascension?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 20, 2007 11:52 am
I think we need to separate the continuing class struggle and the continuing development of capitalist relations from the actual revolution. Revolutions occur when people consciously begin to transform the world around them according to their class interest.

......
In other words, I don't see a linear movement towards socialism within the "womb" of capitalist society.

Doesn't Marx make the point that, unlike the bourgeosie who can build up their economic power within feudal society, the proletariat cannot prosper within capitalism and therefore need to smash the political state and expropriate the bourgeoisie as the starting point for its ascension?
I think it is important not to make the distinction you make. Revolutionaries must understand the revolution as a process, understand how that process begins, how it is progressed and how it is completed. Otherwise, you will get revolutionaries discounting the value of what precedes the seizure of the State, expecting too much from the moment of seizure and unprepared for the struggles to come after.

I agree there is no linear movement. Only the class struggle pushes the matter forward to a conclusion. As the class struggle ebbs and flows so does the process.

Does Marx make that point ? Im not aware of it. Sounds like a Communist Manifesto point if he said it. Got a source ?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:14 am
the system of slavery was never abolished by a revolution.
It was in Haiti and France.

[Hit The North]

Gil:


I think it is important not to make the distinction you make. Revolutionaries must understand the revolution as a process, understand how that process begins, how it is progressed and how it is completed.

I agree that we need to see the revolution as a process but perhaps one which takes place within a fairly localized time period. Otherwise how do we distinguish between a pre-revolutionary situation and a normal period of class struggle?


Does Marx make that point ? Im not aware of it. Sounds like a Communist Manifesto point if he said it. Got a source ?

No, it's a half-remembered passage - maybe not even Marx. I'll have a search and let you know.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 20, 2007 08:03 pm

I agree that we need to see the revolution as a process but perhaps one which takes place within a fairly localized time period. Otherwise how do we distinguish between a pre-revolutionary situation and a normal period of class struggle?


I guess I worry less about this than about so=called revolutionaries - advocates of the working class - discounting the needs of members of that class as they already exist and discount the victories in daily class struggle (however limited) that allow some of those needs to be met.

[CornetJoyce]

The English Revolution of the 1640s ended with a restoration and then the Glorious Revolution brought the rule not of burghers but of the Country Party.
The American Revolution just kicked the empire out, giving control to the burghers in
the north but to the country party in the south.
The French Revolution of 1789 may have been "bourgeois" but it retarded capitalist development.
The Dutch Revolution comes the closest to a "bourgeois revolution."

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:37 am
The English Revolution of the 1640s ended with a restoration and then the Glorious Revolution brought the rule not of burghers but of the Country Party.
The American Revolution just kicked the empire out, giving control to the burghers in
the north but to the country party in the south.
The French Revolution of 1789 may have been "bourgeois" but it retarded capitalist development.
The Dutch Revolution comes the closest to a "bourgeois revolution."
Just taking advantage of your post to illustrate my point: if you look for a single moment when the bourgeois revolution might supposedly have happened, you wont find it. History is not that simple. How strange it would be if there could be a moment, a single political act, that transformed a society. All these examples show that no matter how radical the moment, there is still an underlying job to be done that takes time, hundreds of years in the case of each bourgeois revolution. Big ships turn slowly.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:12 pm
if you look for a single moment when the bourgeois revolution might supposedly have happened, you wont find it. History is not that simple. How strange it would be if there could be a moment, a single political act, that transformed a society. All these examples show that no matter how radical the moment, there is still an underlying job to be done that takes time, hundreds of years in the case of each bourgeois revolution. Big ships turn slowly.
When one speaks of a transformation from one "mode" to another in a simplistic block diagram of "history," the term "Revolution" is really stretched out of shape. No rising or coup effects any such transformation. It may seem to initiate, accelerate or complete it though.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It should be noted that the bourgeois revolution in America has certain peculiarities that Britain, Holland, France, and Germany did not have - it had no previous feudal antiquity. The feudal restrictions on land tenure were slight, and at best, ineffective due to the fact that the already weakened aristocracy could only impose so much from affar without upsetting the delicate relationship held between each other. The confiscation and breakup of loyalist estates, and the end of restrictions on the ready acquisition of lands to the west of the Appalachian range placed on them by the British, basically wiped out feudalism for good within the United States.

"the system of slavery was never abolished by a revolution"

The Civil War was a revolution; it abolished slavery and indentured servitude, and the control that the land aristocracy held over Congress. It meant that capitalist production had won - that the bourgeoisie had finally faced no matter obstacles in advancing society foward.