The French Revolution
The workers are always being told that they must pull with their masters—the capitalists; they are told that ”class-struggle” and ”revolution” spell ruin for the “nation.” Yet, once, the capitalists themselves were revolutionaries and they fought out the culmination of a class-struggle against the feudal aristocracy which ended in the overthrow of the latter and the victory of the capitalists. Having gained political power, the capitalist class transformed society to suit its needs and then became reactionary—it had become the ruling class and had to maintain its newly-won position against its wage-slaves, the working class.
In France this class-struggle between capitalists and feudal lords reached its climax in the 18th century. The feudal lords themselves, formerly revolutionary, now showed every sign of being a decadent and useless class. Previously, they had governed areas of land, administering justice and raising armies; now, many of them were living at Versailles at the King’s court, whilst Intendants (often of capitalist origin) replaced them in their work. As of yore, however, these feudal lords were exempt from taxation, and the peasants were required to work so many days a year on the lands of their masters. In short, the nobility had long ceased to do any useful work for society, their chief function being to idle away their lives at Versailles, squandering money and contracting debts, except when doing such important work as putting the King to bed!
But what of the capitalists at this period? Far from being a decadent class, as was the aristocracy, they showed plenty of vigour, attacking everything which upheld feudalism, the system then prevailing. They had been growing richer and richer for over two centuries, i.e., ever since the Age of Discovery, when trade sprang up between Europe and the newly-discovered lands. In France, the feudal lords held themselves aloof from the commercial enterprises in which the capitalists prospered and grew rich. And yet the French capitalists were not satisfied, for industry and trade, which were causing them to grow rich, were hindered by feudalism. There was no unity in France; provinces were like separate kingdoms in that goods entering them, were subject to tariffs; often, also, different provinces had different systems of law and different weights and measures. (In the north there were 285 different codes of law. A “perche” at Paris equalled 34 metres. In other places it. equalled 51 or 42 metres. Imagine the difficulties that would arise when two merchants of different towns were trading!—”Histoire de France,” Vol. II, p. 20. Malet and Isaac.) Lastly, many guilds still survived (a good number had aheady disappeared) which protected the artisan by restricting competition in industry. This state of affairs, which had served well enough when there was no, or very little, trade, was now obnoxious to the rising capitalists, for it cramped their commerce and industry. To be able to develop capitalism freely, the capitalist needed a united France, a France without internal trade barriers.
Gradually, as the 18th century passed, the French capitalists became more and more determined to change the system, especially when the Government’s attempts at reform met with failure. It began to see that no other class could do this work for it, and that political power was necessary. Writers began to give expression to the needs of the rising class. Feudalism was attacked, and the people and things which upheld that system: feudal lords, Absolute Monarchy and the Church. Among the many writers, Quesnay and Gournay wanted complete freedom in trade and industry, Montesquieu demanded a monarchy limited and controlled by representatives of the nation, and Voltaire attacked the Church. The French capitalists, then, were revolutionary in the 18th century, awaiting the opportunity to transform society to suit their needs. This opportunity came in 1789 when the court (i.e., the Government) was short of money. Previously the capitalists had made loans, but they now refused until the monarchy had promised to call the Estates-General. (This institution, which had not met since 1614, resembled the English Parliament. It had, however, three Orders or Chambers: the Nobility, the Clergy and the Third Estate.) The calling of the Estates-General gave the capitalists the chance for which they had been waiting, the chance of gaining political power.
When it was decided to call the Estates-General, two very important questions needed to be solved. Previously, the Estates-General had been composed of the three Orders which had equal representation and which sat and voted in different chambers. Now the capitalists demanded that the Third Estate should have double representation (i.e., as many as the other two orders together), and that noble, clergyman and bourgeois should all vote together, decisions being reached by majority vote. By this method the French capitalist class saw that it could gain political power. The nobility, the reactionary class, seeing that their position would be in danger if the demands of the capitalists were granted, urged that the Estates should be constituted as of old. The attacks of the capitalists were vigorous, and the King, depending upon them for financial aid, granted double representation to the Third Estate, whilst postponing, until the meeting of the Estates, the question as to whether the Orders should form one chamber or three.
When the Orders met at Versailles on May 5th, 1789, a conflict between the feudal lords and the representatives of capital broke out immediately—the former demanding that the three-chamber method of voting be retained, the latter demanding a single assembly. The capitalists realised that, despite their double representation, they would always be outvoted 2–1 by the nobles and clergy, if voting was carried out by three separate bodies. Having a great deal at stake they would not give in. The conflict lasted six weeks. They refused to be called an “Order” and refused to elect a president. They sent deputies to demand that the other Orders should join them. The nobility, knowing well that this would mean its loss of power, and a victory for the capitalists, decided to sit apart by 173 votes to 79. The clergy was split more than the nobility, and some of them even submitted to the capitalists’ demands, left their Order and joined the Third Estate. This gave courage to the capitalists; they decided to wait no longer for the nobles, and, on June 17th, took the name “The National Assembly.” The King would have liked to have dissolved the Assembly, but he dared not, because he relied upon the capitalists for loans, and also because he knew that they had the backing of the majority of the French population, i.e., of the peasants. (Madelin, in his “French Revolution,” shows how the bourgeoisie had won the support of the peasants during the elections—p. 24). Whilst the King was hesitating the whole of the clergy went over to the capitalists (June 19th). The latter were soon to show their thanks to the clergy by stripping the Church of most of its wealth.
At last the King decided that the three Orders should sit apart. He went to the Assembly and ordered it to break up. The bourgeoisie refused, for already it had stirred up the people of Paris, who began to invade the court-yard. The King saw that the people were against him, and, still being in need of money, had to command that all three Orders should sit together and form a separate chamber. Now the victory of the capitalists was assured. They had gained political power. Having double representation, they could always out-vote the nobility and clergy in a single chamber.
When they had gained ruling power, the capitalists transformed society to their needs, and then made secure their newly-won position against the working class (i.e., they became reactionary). Here are some of the things they did: —
They abolished feudalism and freed commerce and industry, so that capitalism could develop unhindered. Weights and measures were made uniform throughout France.
They made sure of retaining political power in the future by establishing a constitution. It is important to note that, despite the “Rights of Man ” voted in August, 1789, in which all men were declared “equal,” universal suffrage was not adopted. In 1791, (or example, only about 43,000 individuals were eligible to vote for the deputies to the Chamber. (As Madelin points out, the bourgeois “were as undemocratic at bottom as men well could be, and their feeling for the masses was nothing but a mixture of scorn and fear. ‘The perfect type of the bourgeois of ’89,’ writes M. Meynier de la Reveillière, ‘combining hatred of the nobles and distrust of the mob!’ ” (P. 23.))
They raised a citizen militia, the National Guard, to protect their interests from the attacks of the nobles and from the demands of the working-class. In every city and town, National Guards were formed. Whenever the workers, thinking they were to get something out of the Revolution, rebelled, they were speedily dispersed by the new army.
They forbade workers to deliberate together or form trade unions.
In this article we have shown that the capitalists have themselves been revolutionary, attacking every prop of the system they wanted to overthrow; that they were able to effect their revolution only when they had gained political power; and that soon they became reactionary, being content to consolidate their position as dominant class, so as to be able to withstand the demands of the workers. When the workers become revolutionary, they, too, will gain
political power, but will use it to abolish private property in the means of production and distribution. However, they will not become reactionary, for the working-class is the last class striving for emancipation. Another difference between the workers’ revolution and that of the capitalists lies in the fact that whereas the French revolution was in the interests of a small minority, the workers’ revolution will be in the interests of the immense majority.
BABEUF