In summary bourgeois revolutions.

[Entrails Konfetti]

In all bourgeois revolutions the poor, peasants and working classes were revolting either because foodstuffs were low, living conditions were terrible and they were being taxed out the ass by the monarchy and nobility. the bourgeoisie was revolting because their commodities had high tarrifs attached to them, and they had very little say in transactions.

The bourgeoisie had the advantage because they were able to finance revolutionary clubs, and militias. They recruited the lower classes into the militias, but the bourgeoisie served as officiers, and controlled the clubs through wealth.

So pretty much, the lower-classes were in upheaval, didn't have a direction, and the bourgeoisie took advantage of it all.

[Labor Shall Rule]

There was a very small, marginalized urban working class. It was mostly artisans and handicraft laborers in the cities at the time, who were small property owners at best. The peasantry also either gained private ownership over the land they toiled on, continued to live under their feudal lords but under different conditions, or flooded into the cities. In many cases, the peasants wished to preserve homescale production based on a feudal levy, since it granted them a stable life.

So, the 'lower classes' were recruited, but only portions of it truly benefited, so they tied themselves to the bourgeoisie, while others fought the preservation of the outmoded system.

[Tower of Bebel]

Early bourgeois revolutions had a strong bourgeoisie and a weak industrial proletariat.
The bourgeois revolutions of the 20th century suffered mostly from the betrayal of the social-democracy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:59 pm
Early bourgeois revolutions had a strong bourgeoisie and a weak industrial proletariat.
The bourgeois revolutions of the 20th century suffered mostly from the betrayal of the social-democracy.
^^^ Care to elaborate on that last sentence? :huh:

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 02, 2007 07:41 pm
There was a very small, marginalized urban working class. It was mostly artisans and handicraft laborers in the cities at the time, who were small property owners at best.
I shouldn't have said the working-class didn't have a direction, there were people like the True Levellers and St. Simon who came out of these revolutions, the former advocated a system of direct workers control, the latter a broader "fairer" democracy. As you noted the small artisian and guild nature of the urban proletariat-- which meant an increasing nature of the division of labour, a system of workers control was very new, and couldn't be realized because it wasn't widespread enough to produce for the whole world. Whereas now, the division of labour can be smoothed out because of greater technology and mechanization, and it can very well produce for whole world over and over again. The former was utopian-socialist thought. The latter's basis was morallity; it was considered unholy to exploit.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Hammer+October 03, 2007 03:19 am--> (Hammer @ October 03, 2007 03:19 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 01:59 pm
Early bourgeois revolutions had a strong bourgeoisie and a weak industrial proletariat.
The bourgeois revolutions of the 20th century suffered mostly from the betrayal of the social-democracy.
^^^ Care to elaborate on that last sentence? :huh: [/b]
Since capitalism has created the neccessary means for a succesful socialist revolution, many so called bourgeois revolutions of the 20th century were socialist revolution betrayed by the social democracy. Bourgeois revolutions of the 20th century differ from the ones of the 18th and 19th century because during the Ancient Regime socialism was an impossibility.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+October 03, 2007 11:25 pm--> (EL KABLAMO @ October 03, 2007 11:25 pm)
Labor Shall [email protected] 02, 2007 07:41 pm
There was a very small, marginalized urban working class. It was mostly artisans and handicraft laborers in the cities at the time, who were small property owners at best.
I shouldn't have said the working-class didn't have a direction, there were people like the True Levellers and St. Simon who came out of these revolutions, the former advocated a system of direct workers control, the latter a broader "fairer" democracy. As you noted the small artisian and guild nature of the urban proletariat-- which meant an increasing nature of the division of labour, a system of workers control was very new, and couldn't be realized because it wasn't widespread enough to produce for the whole world. Whereas now, the division of labour can be smoothed out because of greater technology and mechanization, and it can very well produce for whole world over and over again. The former was utopian-socialist thought. The latter's basis was morallity; it was considered unholy to exploit. [/b]
I agree, good post.