Allan
However, Robespierre was a revolutionary democrat in his politics, so that once the French revolutionary bourgeoisie felt the aims it wanted had been accomplished, and it no longer required the last remaining elements of the revolutionary plebeian democracy on the basis of which said aims had, indeed, been accomplished, the French bourgeoisie turned on Robespierre and his government and destroyed them in the middle of 1794, and that was the beginning of the political counter-revolution against the French Revolution.
I
This isn't correct. The bourgeoisie hated the revolution in its radical phase, under the Jacobins. However the bourgeoisie as a whole was too scared and fragmented to be of any real political power at that stage. Toward the end of the radical phase of the revolution, the civil war was brought under control, Paris was safe, and the country was pretty secure against the foreign White armies. At this point the Terror was wound down and economic policies favouring the bourgeoisie were instituted, all-in-all, if he weren't overthrown, we would have seen Robespierre lead the degeneration of the revolution into stable bourgeois rule in a way politically similar to Cromwell in England. Anyway, this easing of the Terror and economic policies cut plebian support away from the Jacobins, and lead to an alliance between the Enrages on the left, who wanted to make the revolution go further, re-establish the terror, and move on to a more radical plebian-communist stage of the revolution, and the 'marsh', that wavering parliamentary centre that only accepted the Terror because it was too scared of losing it's collective heads. So being too radical for the bourgeoisie to accept, and no longer radical enough for the plebian elements of Paris, the Jacobin regime was overthrown. However the bourgeoisie was sufficiently strong by this point to throw away the plebian elements and behead them along with the Jacobins under the collective title of 'terrorists'.
I feel the need to raise this point because it shows something important: That 'permanent revolution' is not restricted to countries of belated capitalist development in the age of imperialism, but rather is the essential nature of every revolution: From the earliest times, the bourgeoisie has been opposed to revolution, considering the only useful and propper revolution one which only changes the persons in power to those more sympathetic to it. When reading Engels' 'The Peasant War in Germany' about the peasant uprisings in the 1520's, and his 'Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany', along with pretty much any revolutionary history, this becomes unmistakable. The French Revolution was a revolution FOR the bourgeoisie, but it was a revolution opposed by the bourgeoisie (though not necessarily their parliamentary representatives, who then became representatives of the INTERESTS of the bourgeoisie, though not the DESIRES of the bourgeoisie) and eventually ended by by the bourgeoisie. The only problem with the theory of permanent revolution is that it imagines that it is something new, when in reality that's how things have always been.
I feel the need to raise this point because it shows something important: That 'permanent revolution' is not restricted to countries of belated capitalist development in the age of imperialism, but rather is the essential nature of every revolution: From the earliest times, the bourgeoisie has been opposed to revolution, considering the only useful and propper revolution one which only changes the persons in power to those more sympathetic to it. When reading Engels' 'The Peasant War in Germany' about the peasant uprisings in the 1520's, and his 'Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany', along with pretty much any revolutionary history, this becomes unmistakable. The French Revolution was a revolution FOR the bourgeoisie, but it was a revolution opposed by the bourgeoisie (though not necessarily their parliamentary representatives, who then became representatives of the INTERESTS of the bourgeoisie, though not the DESIRES of the bourgeoisie) and eventually ended by by the bourgeoisie. The only problem with the theory of permanent revolution is that it imagines that it is something new, when in reality that's how things have always been.
Allan
In my view, your first statement that "this isn't correct" about my earlier statement is personalist subjectivist nonsense, and, therefore, objectively anti-materialist. The bourgeoisie never "liked" the revolutionary plebeian phase, and I never suggested they did. Rather, they viewed it at one point as a vehicle toward their aims, and at another point as no longer useful as such a vehicle. But if you're going to be an historical materialist, be an historical materialist, not an historical subjectivist.
I don't have any disagreement with your statement that if Robespierre had not been overthrown, he easily would have or could have led the political counter-revolution. But all that statement does is indicate the basic correctness of my earlier point.
The issue is not "hate" or "like". The issue is, when the bourgeoisie came to change their initial view of the revolutionary plebeian movement in 1792-1794 as useful in consolidating their rule. The Jacobin dictatorship of 1793-1794 smashed the last residual feudal obligations in the countryside. What in the hell do you think Trotsky was referring to in the introduction to his "History of the Russian Revolution" when he talked of the contempt and disdain of those reactionary French historians for those who were the real founders of their own country, after all?
No bourgeois regime ever "liked" plebeian democracies in revolutionary periods. That's not the issue.
The issue is, at certain points bourgeois regimes viewed them as useful, and at other points no longer useful.
I don't have any disagreement with your statement that if Robespierre had not been overthrown, he easily would have or could have led the political counter-revolution. But all that statement does is indicate the basic correctness of my earlier point.
The issue is not "hate" or "like". The issue is, when the bourgeoisie came to change their initial view of the revolutionary plebeian movement in 1792-1794 as useful in consolidating their rule. The Jacobin dictatorship of 1793-1794 smashed the last residual feudal obligations in the countryside. What in the hell do you think Trotsky was referring to in the introduction to his "History of the Russian Revolution" when he talked of the contempt and disdain of those reactionary French historians for those who were the real founders of their own country, after all?
No bourgeois regime ever "liked" plebeian democracies in revolutionary periods. That's not the issue.
The issue is, at certain points bourgeois regimes viewed them as useful, and at other points no longer useful.
Allan
Also, any solid reading of perhaps the best book on the French Revolution, Soboul's unabridged "The French Revolution, 1787-1799," makes it unambiguously clear that no commercially unified French capitalist nation-state could have been accomplished short of smashing every last residual feudal obligation, and that required the Jacobin dictatorship of 1793-1794. That again, by the way, is precisely what Trotsky was referring to in his referring contemptuously and disdainfully to those right-wing French historians who themselves didn't like the founders of their own country. The Jacobin dictatorship was, in some historical sense, analogous in what it did for the French peasantry to what the Bolsheviks did for the Russian peasantry, with, however, this difference: the difference lay in the socialist character of the Bolshevik Revolution versus the bourgeois character of the French Revolution. This meant the French bourgeois revolution could only go so far in smashing the feudal obligations, only to eventually turn the smashing of the feudal obligations into overpricing the rural lands of rural peasants so that from first getting the lands, the peasants ended up becoming priced out of being able to hold them, or, at least, the more plebeian strata of the peasants got priced out of being able to hold them. Why? Because the French Revolution laid the basis for French CAPITALISM, while the Bolshevik Revolution laid the basis for a WORKERS' STATE. Different historical epochs = different historical tasks.
Allan
In fact, Grac, the closest analogue to the Jacobin 1793-1794 dictatorship historically in bourgeois terms was two moments in the Second American Revolution and ensuing moment of Radical Reconstruction: 1863-1864, when armed black troops became the main factor in the Northern armies, and then subsequently 1868-1872, during the most radical phase of Radical Reconstruction.
But UNLIKE in France where residual feudal obligations WERE smashed, that did NOT get accomplished in the SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION OR in the phase of Radical Reconstruction, which is PRECISELY why it was so easy for black people to again be semienslaved again in a version of semi-enslavement of racial segregation and race-skin-color-caste oppresion.
But UNLIKE in France where residual feudal obligations WERE smashed, that did NOT get accomplished in the SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION OR in the phase of Radical Reconstruction, which is PRECISELY why it was so easy for black people to again be semienslaved again in a version of semi-enslavement of racial segregation and race-skin-color-caste oppresion.
Allan
So in a sense, the smashing of residual obligations in the countryside by the 1793-1794 Jacobin dictatorship's effecting of what might have been called a "revolutionary alliance of the radicalized faction of the bourgeoisie with the Paris sans-culottes masses and rural peasant masses" was a temporary moment, but crucial if France was to develop as a commercially nationally unified capitalist nation state.
Once the main task (from the bourgeois standpoint) had been accomplished, however, they junked the alliance in favor of a more outright bourgeois political counter-revolution.
But, no, they never "liked" the objective material necessity of having to make the alliance, and I never claimed they did.
Hell, the goddamned GERMAN bourgeoisie never "liked" the, from THEIR standpoint, "objective material necessity" of supporting putting HITLER into power in 1933, but they deemed it an objective material necessity. That's how they think. It's not a subjective personal issue for them.
Once the main task (from the bourgeois standpoint) had been accomplished, however, they junked the alliance in favor of a more outright bourgeois political counter-revolution.
But, no, they never "liked" the objective material necessity of having to make the alliance, and I never claimed they did.
Hell, the goddamned GERMAN bourgeoisie never "liked" the, from THEIR standpoint, "objective material necessity" of supporting putting HITLER into power in 1933, but they deemed it an objective material necessity. That's how they think. It's not a subjective personal issue for them.
I
Allan: "In my view, your first statement that "this isn't correct" about my earlier statement is personalist subjectivist nonsense, and, therefore, objectively anti-materialist. The bourgeoisie never "liked" the revolutionary plebeian phase, and I never suggested they did. Rather, they viewed it at one point as a vehicle toward their aims, and at another point as no longer useful as such a vehicle. But if you're going to be an historical materialist, be an historical materialist, not an historical subjectivist."
Here you are quibbling over which words I used, rather than the argument I made. By 'like' I meant 'supported and identified with' and even 'saw it as useful'. The bourgeoisie, as a class (and distinct from any individuals within the class) did not support the plebian uprising. The plebian uprising was only useful to them insofar as it maintained the Girondins in power against the Feudalists and forced a compromise with the fuedalists. Once the Girondins were thrown out of government and the plebian-backed Jacobins were in power, support for the plebs by the bourgeoisie disappeared. They did not identify with, or even find useful, but rather opposed the Jacobin regime.
You said that the "once the French revolutionary bourgeoisie felt the aims it wanted had been accomplished, and it no longer required the last remaining elements of the revolutionary plebeian democracy on the basis of which said aims had, indeed, been accomplished, the French bourgeoisie turned on Robespierre and his government and destroyed them in the middle of 1794..." Now, I didn't charge you for your anthropomorphism of the French bourgeoisie because I knew what you were saying. At least offer me the same decency in return and deal with the argument I raised, if you have a problem with it, and not quibble over any supposed 'idealist implications' in the specific words chosen.
Now anyway, that quote there is what you said, and I was responding to the two points raised in it:
"once the French revolutionary bourgeoisie felt the aims it wanted had been accomplished, and it no longer required the last remaining elements of the revolutionary plebeian democracy", i.e., that the bourgeoisie 'no longer required' the plebian democracy at the end of the Jacobin regime, and:
"the French bourgeoisie turned on Robespierre and his government and destroyed them in the middle of 1794..." i.e., that the French bourgeoisie 'turned on' or betrayed Robespierre and the Jacobins.
I pointed out that the plebian-supported Terrorist regime was not supported or seen as useful by the bourgeoisie, and that the bourgeoisie could thus not 'turn on' or betray the Terrorist regime precisely because they were opponents of it from the start. To reiterrate, the bourgeoisie only supported the plebian democracy only insofar as it strengthened the regime of the Girondins and forced the feudalists to make a compromise with the bourgeoisie.
After that you go off on a track that seems to say that I don't consider the French Revolution a bourgeois revolution, or that it didn't benefit them, or that it was a somehow anti-bourgeois revolution, however this can only be because you were so outraged by the fact that I said you were wrong that you didn't bother to read my post to the end. I specifically said:
" The French Revolution was a revolution FOR the bourgeoisie, but it was a revolution opposed by the bourgeoisie (though not necessarily their parliamentary representatives, who then became representatives of the INTERESTS of the bourgeoisie, though not the DESIRES of the bourgeoisie) and eventually ended by by the bourgeoisie."
And finally you go on to imply that I was saying that the French Revolution could have, or should have, ended in a workers state. I did not. Just as I highlighted that the Jacobin period of the French Revolution was made against the desires of the bourgeoisie but in the interests of the bourgeoisie, I brought up the relevance of permanent revolution. The significance of bringing up permanent revolution was not to say that the French Revolution was socialist, but that the bourgeoisie oppose the most strenuous measures necessary in order to establish a social and economic situation in which capitalism can prosper. As such, the tasks of the bourgeois revolution fall upon the shoulders of those classes which capitalism will oppress and exploit. In a word, the bourgeoisie cannot make its own revolution. The difference between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution was not in the 'historical tasks' but in the historical possibilities. In both cases there was a feudal regime with a more or less strong bourgeoisie. The historical tasks of both was the establishmen of an environment suitable for the free development of capitalism. But in no case can the oppressed stop there, they need to go further because seriously, why would the oppressed make a revolution only in order for a new class to oppress them! In the French Revolution there was no historic possibility for socialism because the nascent capitalism hadn't developed the productive forces anywhere enough for socialism to be possible, and along side that, there was no large and concentrated proletariat with both the ability and the interest to make such a transition to socialism. In Russian Revolution, however, we see the same historical tasks, but capitalism had developed enough to make a planned economy not merely a theoretical possibility, but outright desirable, and there was a conscious, concentrated, and sizeable proletariat. The historical possibilities put socialist revolution alongside the bourgeois revolution.
Finally, you raise the American Civil War, that great heroic revolution, yet it, too, falls in line with what I have said here: The Northern Bourgeoisie opposed at all times the removal of slavery, favouring compromise after compromise after compromise. The Slave Owners of the South NEEDED to expand in order to maintain their social order, and thus they were forced to push war on the Northern bourgeoisie. But still, the bourgeoisie opposed war. Only through the petty bourgeois abolitionists was the revolution actually carried out, against the will of the bourgeoisie. Again, a revolution in the interests of the bourgeoisie, but against the DESIRES of that class.
Here you are quibbling over which words I used, rather than the argument I made. By 'like' I meant 'supported and identified with' and even 'saw it as useful'. The bourgeoisie, as a class (and distinct from any individuals within the class) did not support the plebian uprising. The plebian uprising was only useful to them insofar as it maintained the Girondins in power against the Feudalists and forced a compromise with the fuedalists. Once the Girondins were thrown out of government and the plebian-backed Jacobins were in power, support for the plebs by the bourgeoisie disappeared. They did not identify with, or even find useful, but rather opposed the Jacobin regime.
You said that the "once the French revolutionary bourgeoisie felt the aims it wanted had been accomplished, and it no longer required the last remaining elements of the revolutionary plebeian democracy on the basis of which said aims had, indeed, been accomplished, the French bourgeoisie turned on Robespierre and his government and destroyed them in the middle of 1794..." Now, I didn't charge you for your anthropomorphism of the French bourgeoisie because I knew what you were saying. At least offer me the same decency in return and deal with the argument I raised, if you have a problem with it, and not quibble over any supposed 'idealist implications' in the specific words chosen.
Now anyway, that quote there is what you said, and I was responding to the two points raised in it:
"once the French revolutionary bourgeoisie felt the aims it wanted had been accomplished, and it no longer required the last remaining elements of the revolutionary plebeian democracy", i.e., that the bourgeoisie 'no longer required' the plebian democracy at the end of the Jacobin regime, and:
"the French bourgeoisie turned on Robespierre and his government and destroyed them in the middle of 1794..." i.e., that the French bourgeoisie 'turned on' or betrayed Robespierre and the Jacobins.
I pointed out that the plebian-supported Terrorist regime was not supported or seen as useful by the bourgeoisie, and that the bourgeoisie could thus not 'turn on' or betray the Terrorist regime precisely because they were opponents of it from the start. To reiterrate, the bourgeoisie only supported the plebian democracy only insofar as it strengthened the regime of the Girondins and forced the feudalists to make a compromise with the bourgeoisie.
After that you go off on a track that seems to say that I don't consider the French Revolution a bourgeois revolution, or that it didn't benefit them, or that it was a somehow anti-bourgeois revolution, however this can only be because you were so outraged by the fact that I said you were wrong that you didn't bother to read my post to the end. I specifically said:
" The French Revolution was a revolution FOR the bourgeoisie, but it was a revolution opposed by the bourgeoisie (though not necessarily their parliamentary representatives, who then became representatives of the INTERESTS of the bourgeoisie, though not the DESIRES of the bourgeoisie) and eventually ended by by the bourgeoisie."
And finally you go on to imply that I was saying that the French Revolution could have, or should have, ended in a workers state. I did not. Just as I highlighted that the Jacobin period of the French Revolution was made against the desires of the bourgeoisie but in the interests of the bourgeoisie, I brought up the relevance of permanent revolution. The significance of bringing up permanent revolution was not to say that the French Revolution was socialist, but that the bourgeoisie oppose the most strenuous measures necessary in order to establish a social and economic situation in which capitalism can prosper. As such, the tasks of the bourgeois revolution fall upon the shoulders of those classes which capitalism will oppress and exploit. In a word, the bourgeoisie cannot make its own revolution. The difference between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution was not in the 'historical tasks' but in the historical possibilities. In both cases there was a feudal regime with a more or less strong bourgeoisie. The historical tasks of both was the establishmen of an environment suitable for the free development of capitalism. But in no case can the oppressed stop there, they need to go further because seriously, why would the oppressed make a revolution only in order for a new class to oppress them! In the French Revolution there was no historic possibility for socialism because the nascent capitalism hadn't developed the productive forces anywhere enough for socialism to be possible, and along side that, there was no large and concentrated proletariat with both the ability and the interest to make such a transition to socialism. In Russian Revolution, however, we see the same historical tasks, but capitalism had developed enough to make a planned economy not merely a theoretical possibility, but outright desirable, and there was a conscious, concentrated, and sizeable proletariat. The historical possibilities put socialist revolution alongside the bourgeois revolution.
Finally, you raise the American Civil War, that great heroic revolution, yet it, too, falls in line with what I have said here: The Northern Bourgeoisie opposed at all times the removal of slavery, favouring compromise after compromise after compromise. The Slave Owners of the South NEEDED to expand in order to maintain their social order, and thus they were forced to push war on the Northern bourgeoisie. But still, the bourgeoisie opposed war. Only through the petty bourgeois abolitionists was the revolution actually carried out, against the will of the bourgeoisie. Again, a revolution in the interests of the bourgeoisie, but against the DESIRES of that class.
John
Didn't Robespierre and the Jacobins instigate or at least encourage 'The Terror'? A kind of French cultural revolution but a lot more bloody.
I
The Jacobins did preside over the terror, however it was nothing like the 'cultural revolution'. The terror was a period of civil war, with the defenders of feudalism, those who wanted compromise with feudalism, and those who wanted to smash feudalism fought for the country. In this situation it is unsurprising that many people were killed in revolutionary and counter-revolutionary terror. However the numbers simply don't compare to the Cultural Revolution. In addition to this disparity in numbers, the majority of those killed in the terror were in war zones, not in Paris.
Does anybody have any thoughts? Corrections? Objections?
