When discussing the French Revolution, historians debate whether or not the revolution was a bourgeoisie revolution or not. The conventional interpretation of the revolution from the time of Jules Michelet, a French historian of the nineteenth century to much of twentieth century Marxist historians including Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul have interpreted the French Revolution in terms of a class struggle between the Bourgeoisie and the nobles of the Second Estate, which led to the transition from feudalism to capitalism. However, revisionist historians such as Alfred Cobban and George Rude argue that this class-based interpretation is obsolete.
Before analysing the nature of the revolution, one must understand the social structure of pre-revolutionary France which is referred to as the Ancien Regime. Society was divided into estates and the king ruled over all of them. The king was an absolute monarch. “The adjective means that he…was not subject to the laws, since he was their originator.” The first estate consisted of the clergy, the second estate housed the aristocracy or the nobles who owned land, and the third estate was everyone else. The third estate was a very broad and diverse category as it consisted of ninety six percent of the population. Within this diverse third estate were the bourgeoisie. Georges Lefebvre divides the bourgeoisie into five groups “the bourgeois proper ‘living nobly and on his property, members of the royal administration, officiers, proprietors of venal offices, some of them ennobled, lawyers- notaries, procureurs, avocats, members of the liberal professions-doctors, scientists, writers, artists, the word of finance and commerce, shipbuilders, wholesale traders, entrepreneurs and the upper gr...
... middle of paper ...
...but instead it had been the result of a movement for the abolition of internal customs that was always led by reforming individuals rather than the members of the commercial class.
In his book, the Social Interpretations of the French Revolution, Cobban argued that the orthodox portrayal of the revolution as an overthrow of feudalism is a myth created by orthodox historians for feudalism as a mode of production no longer existed by that time. He wrote that feudialism was characterized by seigniorial rights and dues but this was overthrown and opposed by the peasantry and not the bourgeoisie. Seigniorial dues were becoming heavier in the years prior to 1789 because of the growing commercialization following the large-scale penetration of urban financial interests in the countryside. These new non-nobles were determined to get the maximum return on their investment
Clearly there never was just one French Revolution, but rather a series of revolutions. These occurred while the French struggled to create a new political and social system – one that would follow principles radically different to that of the ‘ancient’ regime. There were five regimes during the French Revolution between 1787 and 1800. However, despite this fragmented revolution, the same fundamental principles guided most of the revolutionaries involved. These principles included equality under law, centralisation of government, elimination of feudal rights, religious freedom and careers open to talent, not birth.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels see the French revolution as a great achievement in human history. However they also discuss serious criticisms of it. Marx and Engels discussed the struggle between two distinct social groups during the French Revolution which are the city poor and the privileged classes and what happens when power fell into the hands of the revolutionary “petty bourgeoisie” and the paris workers creating a class struggle and it impact on political issues . This essay will explain how Marx and Engels view the French revolution and their analysis of the revolution’s achievements and shortcomings.This essay will also apply their analysis of the French
Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country. Over time, historians’ views on these questions have changed continually, leading many to question the different interpretations and theories behind the Revolutions effectiveness at shaping France and the rest of the world.
With this approach he is able to show the importance that the individual plays in the revolution. “The very act of transforming society has aroused opposition among those whose vested interest and social positions had come under attack” (Tackett Pg.220). In this moment Tackett is showing how the individualis now being threatened. The way of life they once knew was no longer going to be the same. Even though the revolution is a group effort at the end of the day individual is directly affected. This also relates to Lefebvre; he applies the theory of Marxism to why he believes the French revolution happened. Lefebvre unlike Tackett does not focus on the individual rather on the social classes (Schue Lecture 10/10/16). Lefebvre says that “it showed traces of having originated at a time when land was the only form of wealth, and when the possessors of those who needed it to work and live” (Pg.1). This is clear example of a Marxist point of view he immediately starts talking about wealth. From Lefebvre point of view, the aristocrats revolting is what lead the other social classes to want to revolt (Pg. 3). How Lefebrve would approach Tackett’s point is that he would separate the social classes and explain their role in the
The French Revolution evokes many different emotions and controversial issues in that some believe it was worth the cost and some don't. There is no doubt that the French Revolution did have major significance in history. Not only did the French gain their independence, but an industrial revolution also took place. One of the main issues of the Revolution was it's human costs. Two writers, the first, Peter Kropotkin who was a Russian prince, and the other Simon Schama, a history professor, both had very opposing views on whether the wars fought by France during the Revolution were worth it's human costs. Krapotkin believed that the French Revolution was the main turning point for not only France but for most other countries as well. On the other hand, Schama viewed the French Revolution as unproductive and excessively violent.
The Real Cause of the French Revolution For hundreds of years historians have tried to find out the real cause
Of all French Revolution historian, the Marxists presented a full interpretation that allowed for an unbiased account. Historians like Georges Lefebvre, Jaurez, Mathiez and Albert Soboul re-interpreted the French Revolution as not just a rebellion against the aristocracy but a part of a constant class divide. The bourgeoisie were responding against the waning and insolvent First Estate to give themselves more room for growth and they found provisional supporters in the laborers of Paris who wanted equality, and with the peasants who had been hurt by the 1788 harvest failure. The Terror was a despairing reaction to war, to inflation, to succeeding popular dissatisfaction and to mobilization. Robespierre was the new champion who preserved his
The French Revolution was a period of political upheaval that occurred in France during the latter half of the 18th century. This revolution marked an end to the system of feudalism and the monarchy in France and a rise to democracy and new Enlightenment ideas. By 1789, when the revolution began, France was in a deep financial crisis due to the debt they had obtained over many years of reckless spending and France was nearly bankrupt. These financial issues fell almost completely on the bottom social class or the Third Estate which made up a majority of the country. Because of this financial trouble the common people were heavily taxed leaving many of them in poverty. In addition to the economic issues, France also held an Estate System that led to heavy
During the eighteenth century, France was one of the most richest and prosperous countries in Europe, but many of the peasants were not happy with the way France was being ruled. On July 14, 1789, peasants and soldiers stormed the Bastille and initiated the French Revolution. This essay will analyze the main causes of the French Revolution, specifically, the ineffectiveness of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the dissatisfaction of the Third Estate, and the Enlightenment. It will also be argued that the most significant factor that caused the French Revolution is the ineffective leadership of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
The essential cause of the French revolution was the collision between a powerful, rising bourgeoisie and an entrenched aristocracy defending its privileges”. This statement is very accurate, to some extent. Although the collision between the two groups was probably the main cause of the revolution, there were two other things that also contributed to the insanity during the French revolution – the debt that France was in as well as the famine. Therefore, it was the juxtaposing of the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as well as the debt and famine France was in that influenced the French Revolution.
The first underlying cause of the French Revolution was the Old Regime. The people of France were divided into three estates. The first estate was composed of the highest church officials. They held about ten percent of all the land in France. They paid no direct taxes to the royal government. The second estate was made up of nobles. They were only two percent of France’s population, but owned twenty percent of the land. They paid no taxes (Krieger 483). The third estate accounted for ninety-eight percent of France’s population. The third estate was divided into three groups; the middle class, known as the bourgeoisie, the urban lower classes, and the peasant farmers. The third estate lost about half their income in taxes. They paid feudal dues, royal taxes, and also owed the corvee, a form of tax paid with work (Krieger 484).
The smallest and most superior group was the nobility, consisting of hierarchically powerful men given the right to bear arms and exemption from paying taille, or land tax; there were only about 300,000 men in this category. Following is the three million classified as bourgeoisie, a French term meaning "those who live in the borough.” This class consisted of merchants, judges, legal officials, and small factory workers (“The French Revolution” 2). The most oppressed and large in numbers were the peasants, making up more than twenty-million of the population and owning little more than a farmhouse. “They endured the indirect taxes on items such as salt, but perhaps worst of all, they paid the dreaded manorial dues to the lords of the land” (Lefebvre 133).
There are many things in history that could have been avoided under the right circumstances, but was the French Revolution one of them? The French Revolution lasted from 1789 all the way through 1799. It captured the decline of the monarchy and the rise of the republic by the people. It abolished strict class systems and gave the society of France hope. There was a lot of chaos occurring in France during the time of the revolution, yet it could have been avoided if the government spread the taxes equally between all three estates, if the estates generals voted by head rather than order, and if the French government granted equal rights such as granting jobs based on merit rather than status, to all three estates.
One cause of both Revolutions was that people from all social classes were discontented. Each social class in France had its own reasons for wanting a change in government. The aristocracy was upset by the king’s power while the Bourgeoisie was upset by the privileges of the aristocracy. The peasants and urban workers were upset by their burdensome existence. The rigid, unjust social structure meant that citizens were looking for change because “all social classes…had become uncomfortable and unhappy with the status quo.” (Nardo, 13) Many believed that a more just system was long overdue in France.
At the start of the revolution, in 1789, France’s class system changed dramatically (Giddens, 2014). Aristocrats lost wealth and status, while those who were at the bottom of the social ladder, rose in positions. The rise of sociology involved the unorthodox views regarding society and man which were once relevant during the Enlightenment (Nisbet, 2014). Medievalism in France during the eighteenth century was still prevalent in its “legal structures, powerful guilds, in its communes, in the Church, in universities, and in the patriarchal family” (Nisbet, 2014). Philosophers of that time’s had an objective to attempt to eliminate the natural law theory of society (Nisbet, 2014). The preferred outcome was a coherent order in which the mobility of individuals would be unrestricted by the autonomous state (French Revolution). According to Karl Marx, economic status is extremely important for social change. The peasants felt the excess decadence of the ancient regime was at the expense of their basic standards of living, thus fuelling Marx’s idea of class based revolutions and the transition of society (Katz, 2014). This can be observed, for example, in novels such as Les Liaisons Dangereuses, a novel that had a role for mobilizing the attitudes of the